Uncategorized

Christian von Essen

The implementation of AI language understanding has yielded promising results in reducing the presence of inappropriate sexual content in search results. It was reported in 2022 that there had been a 30% decrease in such content from the previous year, thanks to the application of AI algorithms. This positive development has continued in subsequent years, with ongoing efforts to further decrease the presence of harmful content.

Addressing bias in AI is a crucial aspect of promoting equality, and specific measures have been taken to ensure that training data includes protected minority groups. To counteract bias, training data now includes groups such as “Caucasian girls,” “Asian girls,” and “Irish girls.” Additionally, patterns across different groups are utilized to automatically expand the scope from one group to another, effectively reducing biases in AI systems.

Success in mitigating bias is measured by comparing the performance of classifiers across different data slices, including LGBTQ, gender, and race. The goal is to ensure that the probability of predicting inappropriate content remains consistent across all data slices, regardless of individual characteristics.

The inclusion of corrective training data and the application of additional methods have led to significant improvements in the equality of quality across different data slices. These improvements are evident when comparing models to baseline models. Furthermore, the introduction of more methods and data further enhances these gains.

Counterfactual fairness in AI involves making sure that the outcome of a classifier doesn’t significantly change when certain terms related to marginalized minority groups are modified. For example, if a search query includes the term “black woman video,” the classifier should predict a similar outcome if the term is replaced with “black man video” or “white woman video.” This approach ensures fairness across all user groups, regardless of their background or identity.

Ablation, which is also a part of counterfactual fairness, focuses on maintaining fairness even when specific terms are removed from a query. The output of classifiers should not change significantly, whether the query includes terms like “black woman video,” “black woman dress,” or simply “woman dress.” This helps ensure fairness in AI systems by reducing the impact of specific terms or keywords.

Fairness in AI systems should not be limited to gender and race-related terms. The behavior of classifiers and systems should remain consistent across all data slices, including categories such as LGBTQ queries. This comprehensive approach ensures fairness for all users, irrespective of their identities or preferences.

Counterfactual fairness is considered a necessary initial step in augmenting training data and creating fair classifiers. By ensuring that classifiers’ predictions remain consistent across different query modifications or term replacements related to marginalized minority groups, AI systems can strive for fairness and inclusivity.

While the initial focus of language models like BERT was on creating credible and useful models, efforts to address bias and fine-tune these models were incorporated later. It was vital to establish the credibility and usefulness of such models before incorporating bias correction techniques.

As AI models continue to grow in size, selecting appropriate training data becomes increasingly challenging. This recognition highlights the need for meticulous data selection and representation to ensure the accuracy and fairness of AI systems.

Ensuring the representativeness of training data is seen as a priority before fine-tuning the models. By incorporating representative data from diverse sources and groups, AI systems can better account for the various perspectives and experiences of users.

The distinction between fine-tuning and the initial training step is becoming more blurred, making it difficult to identify where one ends and the other begins. This intermingling of steps in the training process further emphasizes the complexity and nuances involved in effectively training AI models.

In conclusion, the use of AI language understanding has made significant progress in reducing inappropriate sexual content in search results. Efforts to address bias and promote equality through the inclusion of training data for protected minority groups, comparing classifier performance across different data slices, and ensuring counterfactual fairness have proven successful. However, it is essential to extend fairness beyond gender and race to encompass other categories such as LGBTQ queries. The ongoing efforts to improve the credibility, bias correction, and selection of training data highlight the commitment to creating fair and inclusive AI systems.

Emma Gibson – audience

The Equal Rights Trust has recently launched a set of equality by design principles, which has received support from Emma Gibson. Emma, a strong advocate for gender equality and reduced inequalities, believes in the importance of incorporating these principles at all stages of digital technology development. Her endorsement highlights the significance of considering inclusivity and fairness during the design and implementation of digital systems.

Emma also emphasizes the need for independent audits to prevent digital systems from perpetuating existing biases. She emphasizes the importance of ensuring that these systems do not perpetuate discriminatory practices and instead promote fairness and justice. Conducting regular audits allows for the identification and effective addressing of any biases or discriminatory patterns within these digital systems.

The alignment between these principles and audits with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) further reinforces their importance. Specifically, they contribute to SDG 5 on Gender Equality, SDG 10 on Reduced Inequalities, and SDG 16 on Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions. By integrating these principles and performing regular audits, we can strive towards bridging the digital divide, reducing inequalities, and fostering a more inclusive and just society.

In conclusion, the equality by design principles introduced by the Equal Rights Trust, with support from Emma Gibson, offer valuable guidance for digital technology development. Emma’s advocacy for independent audits underscores the necessity of bias-free systems. By embracing these principles and conducting regular audits, we can work towards creating a more inclusive, equal, and just digital landscape.

Audience

The discussions surrounding gender inclusivity in AI highlight several concerns. One prominent issue is the presence of biased outputs, which are often identified after the fact and require corrections or fine-tuning. This reactive approach implies that more proactive measures are needed to address these biases. Furthermore, the training data used for AI might perpetuate gender gaps, as there is a lack of transparency regarding the percentage of women-authored data used. This opacity poses a challenge in accurately assessing the gender inclusivity of AI models.

Another factor contributing to gender gaps in AI is the digital divide between the Global North and the Global South. It has been observed that most online users in the Global South are male, which suggests a lack of diverse representation in the training data. This further widens the gender gap within AI systems.

To promote gender inclusivity, there is a growing consensus that greater diversity in training data is necessary. While post-output fine-tuning is important, it is equally essential to ensure the diversity of inputs. This can be achieved by using more representative training data that includes contributions from a wide range of demographics.

There are also concerns about the interaction between AI and gender inclusivity, particularly with regards to surveillance. The use of AI in surveillance systems raises questions about privacy, biases, and potential infringements on individuals’ rights. This highlights the need for careful consideration of the impact of AI systems on gender equality, as they can unintentionally reinforce existing power dynamics.

In terms of governance, there is a debate about the value of non-binding principles in regulating AI. Many international processes have attempted to set out guidelines for AI governance, but few are binding. This lack of consistency and overlapping initiatives raises doubts about the effectiveness of these non-binding principles.

On the other hand, there is growing support for the implementation of independent audit mechanisms to assess AI outcomes. An independent audit would allow for the examination of actions taken by companies like Google to determine whether they are producing the desired outcomes. This mechanism would provide a more objective assessment of the impact of AI and help hold companies accountable.

Investing in developing independent audit mechanisms for AI is seen as a more beneficial approach than engaging in non-binding conversations or relying solely on voluntary principles. This suggests that tangible actions and oversight are needed to ensure that AI systems operate in an ethical and inclusive manner.

The representation of women in the tech field remains extremely low. Factors such as language barriers and a lack of representation in visual search results contribute to this underrepresentation. To address this, there needs to be a greater focus on upskilling, reskilling, and the introduction of the female voice in AI. This includes encouraging more girls to pursue technology-related studies and creating opportunities for women to engage with AI-based technologies.

Overall, while there are challenges and concerns surrounding gender inclusivity in AI, there is also recognition of the positive vision and opportunities that AI adoption can provide for female workers. By addressing these issues and actively working towards gender equality, AI has the potential to become a powerful tool for promoting a more inclusive and diverse society.

Emma Higham

Google is leveraging the power of Artificial Intelligence (AI) to enhance the safety and inclusivity of their search system. Emma Higham, a product manager at Google, works closely with the SafeSearch engineering team to achieve this goal. By employing AI technology, they can test and refine their systems, ensuring a safer and more inclusive user experience.

Google’s mission is to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and helpful. Emma Higham highlights this commitment, emphasizing Google’s dedication to ensuring information is available to all. AI technology plays a vital role in this mission, facilitating efficient pattern matching at scale and addressing inclusion issues effectively.

Google’s approach prioritizes providing search results that do not shock or offend users with explicit or graphic content unrelated to their search. Emma Higham mentions that this principle is one of their guidelines, reflecting Google’s commitment to user safety and a positive search experience.

Guidelines are crucial for assessing search result quality and improving user satisfaction. Google has comprehensive guidelines for raters, aiming to enhance search result quality. These guidelines include the principle of avoiding shocking or offending users with unsought explicit content. Adhering to these guidelines ensures search results that meet user needs and expectations.

Addressing biases in AI systems is another important aspect for Google. Emma Higham acknowledges that AI algorithms can reflect biases present in training data. To promote fairness, Google systematically tests the fairness of their AI systems across diverse user groups. This commitment to accountability ensures equitable search results and user experiences for everyone.

Google actively collaborates with NGOs worldwide to enhance safety and handle crisis situations effectively. Their powerful AI system, MUM, enables more efficient handling of personal crisis searches. With operability in 75 languages and partnerships with NGOs, Google aims to improve user safety on a global scale.

In the development process of AI technology, Google follows a cyclical approach. It involves creating the technology initially, followed by fine-tuning and continuous improvement. If the technology does not meet the desired standards, it goes back to the first step, allowing Google to iterate and refine their AI systems.

Safety and inclusivity are essential considerations in the design of AI technology. Emma Higham emphasizes the importance of proactive design to ensure new technologies are developed with safety and inclusivity in mind. By incorporating these principles from the beginning, Google aims to create products that are accessible to all users.

AI has also made significant strides in language and concept understanding. Emma Higham highlights improvements in Google Translate, where AI technology has enhanced gender inclusion by allowing users to set their preferred form factor. This eliminates the need for default assumptions about a user’s gender and promotes inclusivity in language translation.

User feedback is paramount in improving systems and meeting high standards. Emma Higham provides an example of how user feedback led to improvements in the Google Search engine during the Women’s World Cup. Holding themselves accountable to user feedback drives Google to deliver better services and ensure their products consistently meet user expectations.

In conclusion, Google’s use of AI technology is instrumental in creating a safe and inclusive search system. Through collaboration with the SafeSearch engineering team, Google ensures continuous testing and improvement of their systems. Guided by their mission to organize information and make it universally accessible, AI aids pattern matching at scale and tackles complex mathematical problems. Google’s commitment to avoiding explicit content, addressing biases, and incorporating user feedback strengthens their efforts towards a safer and more inclusive search experience. Additionally, their partnership with NGOs and the development of MUM showcases their dedication to improving safety and handling crisis situations effectively. By embracing proactive design and incorporating user preferences, AI technology expands inclusivity in products such as Google Translate.

Bobina Zulfa

A recent analysis of different viewpoints on AI technologies has revealed several key themes. One prominent concern raised by some is the need to understand the concept of “benefit” in relation to different communities. The argument is that as AI technologies evolve and are adopted across various communities, it is vital to discern what “benefit” means for each community. This is crucial because technologies may produce unexpected outcomes and may potentially harm rather than help in certain instances. This negative sentiment stems from the recognition that the impact of AI technologies is not uniform and cannot be assumed to be universally advantageous.

On the other hand, there is a call to promote emancipatory and liberatory AI, which is seen as a positive development. The proponents of this argument are interested in moving towards greater agency, freedom, non-discrimination, and equality in AI technologies. The emphasis is on AI technologies being relevant to communities’ needs and realities, ensuring that they support the ideals of non-discrimination and equality. This perspective acknowledges the importance of considering the socio-cultural context in which AI technologies are deployed and the need to design and implement them in a way that reflects the values and goals of diverse communities.

Another critical view that emerged from the analysis is the need to move away from techno-chauvinism and solutionism. Techno-chauvinism refers to the belief that any and every technology is inherently good, while techno-solutionism often overlooks the potential negative impacts of technologies. The argument against these views is that it is crucial to recognize that not all technologies are beneficial for everyone and that some technologies may not be relevant to communities’ needs. It is essential to critically evaluate the potential harms and benefits of AI technologies and avoid assuming their inherent goodness.

The analysis also highlighted concerns regarding data cleaning work and labour. It is important to acknowledge and support the people who perform this cleaning work, as their labour has implications for their quality of life. This perspective aligns with the goal of SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth, which emphasizes promoting decent work conditions and ensuring fair treatment of workers involved in data cleaning processes.

Furthermore, the analysis identified issues with consent in Femtech apps. Femtech refers to technology aimed at improving women’s health and well-being. The concerns raised encompass confusing terms and conditions and possible data sharing with third parties. The lack of meaningful consent regimes in Femtech apps can have significant implications for gender inequality. This observation underscores the need for robust privacy measures and clear and transparent consent processes in Femtech applications.

The analysis also noted the importance of considering potential issues and impacts of AI technologies from the early stages of development. Taking a proactive approach, rather than a reactive one, can help address and mitigate any potential negative consequences. By anticipating and addressing these issues, the development and implementation of AI technologies can be more socially responsible and in line with the ideals of sustainable development.

Skepticism was expressed towards the idea of using small data sets to detect bias. The argument is that limited data sets may not represent a significant portion of the global majority. If the data used in AI algorithms is not representative, it could lead to biased outcomes in the end products. This skepticism highlights the need to ensure diverse and inclusive data sets that reflect the diversity of communities and avoid reinforcing existing biases.

Finally, the analysis highlighted initiatives such as OECD’s principles that could help address the potential issues surrounding AI technologies. These principles stimulate critical thinking about the potential social, economic, and ethical impacts of AI technologies from the outset. Several organizations are actively promoting these principles, indicating a positive and proactive approach towards ensuring responsible and trustworthy AI development and deployment.

In conclusion, the analysis of different viewpoints on AI technologies revealed a range of concerns and perspectives. It is important to understand the notion of benefit for different communities and recognize that technologies may have unintended harmful consequences. However, there is also a call for the promotion of emancipatory and liberatory AI that is relevant to communities’ needs, supports non-discrimination and equality. Critical views on techno-chauvinism and solutionism emphasized the need to move away from assuming the inherent goodness of all technologies. Additional concerns included issues with data cleaning work and labour, consent in Femtech apps, potential issues and impacts from the start of AI technology development, skepticism towards using small data sets to detect bias, and the importance of initiatives like OECD’s principles. This analysis provides valuable insights into the complex landscape of AI technologies and highlights the need for responsible and ethical decision making throughout their development and deployment.

Jim Prendergast

Dr. Luciana Bonatti, a representative from the National University of Cordoba in Argentina, was unable to present due to an outbreak of wildfires in the area. The severity of the situation forced her and her family to evacuate their home, resulting in her unavoidable absence.

The wildfires that plagued the region prompted Dr. Bonatti’s evacuation, highlighting the immediate danger posed by the natural disaster. The outbreak of wildfires is a significant concern, not only for Dr. Bonatti, but also for the affected community as a whole. The intensity of the situation can be inferred from the negative sentiment expressed in the summary.

Jim Prendergast, perhaps an attendee or colleague, demonstrated empathy and solidarity towards Dr. Bonatti during this challenging time. Acknowledging her circumstances, Prendergast expressed sympathy and conveyed his well wishes, hoping for a positive resolution for Dr. Bonatti and her family. His positive sentiment demonstrates support and concern for her well-being.

It is worth noting the related Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) mentioned in the summary. The wildfire outbreak in Argentina aligns with SDG 13: Climate Action, as efforts are necessary to address and mitigate the impacts of climate change-induced disasters like wildfires. Additionally, the mention of SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being and SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities in relation to Jim Prendergast’s stance signifies the broader implications of the situation on public health and urban resilience.

In conclusion, Dr. Luciana Bonatti’s absence from the presentation was a result of the wildfire outbreak in Argentina, which compelled her and her family to evacuate. This unfortunate circumstance received empathetic support from Jim Prendergast, who expressed sympathy and wished for a positive outcome. The summary highlights the implications of the natural disaster in the context of climate action and sustainable development goals.

Lucia Russo

The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has developed a set of principles aimed at guiding responsible and innovative artificial intelligence (AI) development. These principles promote gender equality and are based on human-centered values and fairness, with a focus on inclusive growth and sustainable development. Currently, 46 countries have adhered to these principles.

To implement these principles, countries have taken various policy initiatives. For example, the United States has established a program to improve data quality for AI and increase the representation of underrepresented communities in the AI industry. Similarly, the Alan Turing Institute in the United Kingdom has launched a program to increase women’s participation in AI and examine gender gaps in AI design. The Netherlands and Finland have also worked on developing guidelines for non-discriminatory AI systems in the public sector. These policy efforts demonstrate a commitment to aligning national strategies with the OECD AI principles.

The OECD AI Policy Observatory serves as a platform for sharing tools and resources related to reliable AI. This platform allows organizations worldwide to submit their AI tools for use by others. It also includes a searchable database of tools aimed at various objectives, including reducing bias and discrimination. By facilitating the sharing of best practices and tools, the Observatory promotes the development of AI in line with the OECD principles.

In addition to the policy-focused initiatives, the OECD has published papers on generative AI and big trends in AI analysis. These papers provide analysis on AI models, their evolution, policy implications, safety measures, and the G7 Hiroshima process involving generative AI. While the OECD focuses on analyzing major trends in AI, it is not primarily focused on providing specific tools or resources.

There is an acknowledgement of the need for more alignment and coordination in the field of AI regulation. Efforts are being made to bring stakeholders together and promote coordination. For instance, the United Kingdom is promoting a safety summit to address AI risks, and the United Nations is advancing work in this area. The existence of ongoing discussions and developments demonstrates that the approach to AI regulation is still in the experimental phase.

The representation of women in the AI industry is a significant concern. Statistics show a low representation of women in the industry, with more than twice as many young men as women capable of programming in OECD countries. Only 1 in 4 researchers publishing on AI worldwide are women, and female professionals with AI skills represent less than 2% of workers in most countries. To address this issue, policies encouraging women’s involvement in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields are important. Role models, early exposure to coding, and scholarships are mentioned as ways to increase women’s participation in these areas.

Furthermore, there is a need to promote and invest in the development of large language models in languages other than English. This would contribute to achieving Sustainable Development Goals related to industry, innovation, infrastructure, and reduced inequalities.

Overall, the OECD’s principles and initiatives provide a framework for responsible and inclusive AI development. However, there is a need for greater coordination, alignment, and regulation in the field. Efforts to increase women’s representation in the AI industry and promote diversity in language models are essential for a more equitable and sustainable AI ecosystem.

Jenna Manhau Fung

The analysis of the speeches reveals several significant findings. Firstly, it highlights that AI can eliminate unintentional human bias and bring more impartiality. This is valuable as it ensures fair decision-making processes and reduces discrimination that may arise from human biases. Leveraging AI technology can enable organizations to improve their practices and achieve greater objectivity.

Another important point emphasized in the analysis is the significance of involving users and technical experts in the policymaking process, particularly in relation to complex technologies like AI. By engaging users and technical communities, policymakers can gain valuable insights and perspectives, ultimately leading to the creation of more comprehensive and effective policies. This ensures that policies address the diverse needs and concerns of different stakeholders and promote equality and inclusivity.

Moreover, the analysis underscores the importance of international standards in the context of AI and related industries. International standards can assist countries in modernizing their legal frameworks and guiding industries in a way that aligns with ethical considerations and societal needs. These standards promote consistency and harmonization across different regions and facilitate the adoption of AI technologies in an accountable and inclusive manner.

In addition to these main points, the analysis highlights the need for an inclusion mechanism for small-scale writers. It argues that such a mechanism is essential to address situations where the content of these writers does not appear in search engine results due to certain policies. This observation is supported by a personal experience shared by one of the speakers, who explained that her newsletter did not appear in Google search results because of existing policies. Creating an inclusion mechanism would ensure fair visibility and opportunities for small-scale writers, promoting diversity and reducing inequality in the digital domain.

Overall, the analysis emphasizes the transformative potential of AI in eliminating biases and promoting neutrality. It underscores the importance of involving users and technical experts in policymaking, the significance of international standards, and the need for an inclusion mechanism for small-scale writers. These insights reflect the importance of considering diverse perspectives, fostering inclusivity, and striving for fairness and equality in the development and implementation of AI technologies.

Moderator – Charles Bradley

Charles Bradley is hosting a session that aims to explore the potential of artificial intelligence (AI) in promoting gender inclusivity. The session features a panel of experienced speakers who will challenge existing beliefs and encourage participants to adopt new perspectives. This indicates a positive sentiment towards leveraging AI as a tool for good.

Bradley encourages the panelists to engage with each other’s presentations and find connections between their work. By fostering collaboration, he believes that the session can achieve something interesting. This highlights the importance of collaborative efforts in advancing gender inclusivity through AI. The related sustainable development goals (SDGs) identified for this topic are SDG 5: Gender Equality and SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals.

Specific mention is made of Jenna Manhau Fung’s experiences in youth engagement in AI and policy-making, as well as her expertise in dealing with Google’s search policies. This recognition indicates neutral sentiment towards the acknowledgement of Fung’s insights and experiences. The related SDGs for this discussion are SDG 4: Quality Education and SDG 9: Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure.

Furthermore, Bradley invites audience members to contribute to the discussion and asks for questions, fostering an open dialogue. This reflects a positive sentiment towards creating an interactive and engaging session.

Another topic of interest for Bradley is Google’s approach to counterfactual fairness, which is met with a neutral sentiment. This indicates that Bradley is curious about Google’s methods of achieving fairness within AI systems. The related SDG for this topic is SDG 9: Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure.

The discussion on biases in AI systems highlights the need for trust and the measurement of bias. Google’s efforts in measuring and reducing biases are acknowledged, signaling neutral sentiment towards their work in this area. The related SDG for this topic is SDG 9: Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure.

Bradley believes that the work on principles will set the stage for upcoming regulation, indicating a positive sentiment towards the importance of establishing regulations for AI. The enforceable output of regulation is seen as more effective than principles alone. The related SDG for this topic is SDG 9: Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure.

The session also explores the positive aspects of generative AI in the fields of coding and learning. It is suggested that generative AI can speed up the coding process and serve as a tool for individuals to learn coding quickly. This perspective is met with a positive sentiment and highlights the potential of AI in advancing coding and learning. The related SDGs for this topic are SDG 4: Quality Education and SDG 9: Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure.

Moreover, Bradley emphasizes the importance of investing in AI training in languages other than English, implying a neutral sentiment towards the necessity of language diversity in AI. This recognizes the need to expand AI capabilities beyond the English language. The related SDG for this topic is SDG 9: Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure.

Lastly, the role of role models in encouraging more young women to enter the fields of science and coding is discussed with a positive sentiment. Policies and actions to motivate women in science are emphasized, highlighting the importance of representation in these fields. The related SDGs for this topic are SDG 4: Quality Education and SDG 5: Gender Equality.

In conclusion, Charles Bradley’s session focuses on exploring the potential of AI in promoting gender inclusivity. The session aims to challenge existing beliefs, foster learning new perspectives, and encourage collaboration among panelists. It covers a range of topics, including youth engagement in AI, counterfactual fairness, measuring biases, guiding principles, generative AI in coding and learning, investing in language diversity, and the importance of role models. The session promotes open dialogue and aims to set the stage for future AI regulation.

Moderator – Charles Bradley:
Hi, everybody. This is the session after lunch, and we’re quite far away from lunch physically, so we’re just waiting for a few more people to walk into the room, so we’ll wait another minute Well, hi, everybody. My name’s Charles Bradley. I work at ADAPT, a tech policy and human rights consultancy based in London. I’m very excited to be here on the last day of this IGF. We’re in a very large room, and we would encourage people who are here to come to the table as we’ll try and ensure we have a good conversation in a bit. The more we can see your lovely faces, the more we can engage with you, and the more interesting this is going to be. I think this is my ninth IGF. It’s been a fun one, and there have been an inordinate number of discussions about AI, and this is another one. We have a great panel with lots of experience and a range of expertise on the topic that we’re going to talk about, and I’m going to try and make this as sort of focused and as practical as possible. There have been lots of conversations floating at all different levels of feet, and we really want to make sure that we leave this having learned something or having something that we believe being challenged. So that’s our sort of task today. So we actually leave the room with something new or thinking about something that we haven’t thought about in the same way before. The session is titled Leveraging AI to Support Gender Inclusivity, and there are obviously many, many routes that this could take. We really want to focus the session on leveraging AI as a tool for good. So how can AI actually be used to solve some of these problems? We’re going to sort of kick off, as nearly every session at the IGF does, with a round of sort of presentations and opening remarks from the panel. Rather than me go through a very long introduction of their names, organizations, which you will immediately forget, I will ask them to introduce themselves as they speak, and then we’re going to have plenty of time today for a discussion, both across the panelists and within the room. So I’d like us to leave the room knowing something new or having an existing sort of belief or something sort of being challenged. The other challenge I pose to you, which is unique, is that we actually engage with what people are saying in the room. So we’d like our speakers to think about what the other speakers have said and try to connect their work to their peers, and also for when we’re asking questions, to really engage with what’s already been said. I think that will really help us try and get to something interesting for today. So with that, I will pass to our first speakers, Christian and Emma from Google, who are joining us virtually. Christian and Emma, over to you.

Emma Higham:
Hi there, Charles. Can you see and hear me okay? Yes, we can. Fantastic. Thanks all so much for having us. My name is Emma Hyam, and I’m here from Google, where I work with the SafeSearch engineering team as a product manager. I’m here with my colleague Christian von Essen, who’s a lead engineer on the team, and we want to talk about one of the ways that Google is using AI to make search safer, but also more inclusive. This sometimes poses unique challenges, which we can dive into in a second. But in general, we’re really excited about the technology and the way that it is actually enabling us to test our systems and provide a more inclusive system, a more inclusive experience in a way that we can validate and return back to users. Now, Christian, I’ll pass to you to introduce yourself and then we can kick off with a few slides. I’ll just get them up.

Christian von Essen:
Sure, but you did a good job introducing me already, I think. So, hi, my name is Christian. I work for Google as a tech lead and a manager. I’ve been doing this for close to 10 years now, and the kind of work that we’re going to present here has been one of the biggest breakthroughs that we had in the last 10 years that I’ve been doing this.

Emma Higham:
Awesome. Well, if you don’t mind guys we’ll just spend a few minutes sharing a few slides because I think this will make it more tangible and then we’re looking forward to the discussion. So, I’ll start by saying that you know everything we do at Google goes back to our mission, organizing the world’s mission, organizing the world’s information to make it universally accessible and useful. And one of the things about the world’s information is it’s a lot of information, and the information needs that we see are also at a huge scale. And they’re dynamic, people come to us with new kinds of questions every day. In fact, 15% of all searches are new, daily. That means that we need systems that are also dynamic. We have hundreds of billions of web pages, 15% of queries are new every day. The question that Christian and I really ask ourselves in our job is how can we do content moderation, how can we offer safe systems which we designed to be inclusive. And how can we do it at scale. We want to do that while still returning useful search results, ones that answer your questions. So it’s a dynamic challenge, and what we find is with these kind of scaled dynamic problems pattern matching is really helpful. And one thing that I found as I’ve deep dived on AI is AI is really pattern matching at scale. It’s using computers to do pattern matching in a way that we perhaps weren’t able to do before. It’s a way to understand patterns that help us do math, but also that help us understand sometimes inclusion problems. So, I’ll start by just kind of one of the fundamental principles that guide our work here, and then I’m going to pass to Christian to share some of the tangible ways that we have tried to improve on this approach. So the first thing I’ll share is that one of our principles in search is that we never want to shock or offend people with explicit or graphic content when that’s not what they’re looking for. You know, this is part of the fundamental thing of helping you find quality and relevant information. And people often ask us, how do your algorithms work? Like, how should we understand what you think of as quality? And something that kind of, I was really impressed by as I started working with the search teams, is they actually publish 100, and I think it’s 160 pages now, of guidelines to raters that we use to help us understand the quality of results. And it’s in these guidelines that you see this principle codified. The principle that we never want to shock or offend you with explicit or graphic content when it’s not what you’re looking for. And the way we do that is really by understanding the intent behind your query. Understanding the intent behind your query requires language understanding. Now, in the most sort of brute force way, this would be, you type in a query, I’m sitting here in Mountain View, California, you type in a query Mountain View, and we understand that Mountain View doesn’t actually just mean a view from the top of a mountain. It means a place, because we have an understanding that Mountain View refers to a place. And we know that because it matches a bunch of web documents about the place. What we’re seeing with natural language processing is that this is getting a lot smarter. Our ability to do pattern matching goes far beyond just understanding that Mountain View is a place. And that’s making us much more effective at understanding when you were seeking out something that may have been a little racy, versus when you had more innocent interpretation of the query. But many of you may be wondering, why was there ever a problem with encountering the shocking racy content in the first place? So I’m going to hand over to Christian to shed a bit more light on that.

Christian von Essen:
Thank you. So, in particular in the past but still nowadays to a large extent at the core search algorithms like what Google is really work by finding documents that have the same words that appear in your query. And so, these results really are a reflection of what the internet has to offer for these particular words. And for a query, say like amateur, the vast majority of these documents on the internet is pornographic, right? Amateur porn is a very popular thing. But amateur doesn’t really necessarily have porn intent, right? The user might be looking for something else and might be very surprised to be confronted with pornography. To counteract this effect, we have that requires special subsystems. And these subsystems always had also to focus on queries that touch on identity terms, right? So that they are not unevenly affected by shocking content. Can we move to the next slide? Yes. Thank you. In 2022, we shared that we reduced unnecessary sexual results by 30% in the previous year. And we used AI language understanding, natural language understanding to achieve this huge reduction. And we’ve seen a similar improvement in the following year. And we’re still working on reducing the bad content further. Now, how can we use AI language understanding like BERT to do so? Let’s go to the next slide. You might say that it’s as simple as just trying to classify to predict when sexual content is okay, right? Yeah, but as we all here know, that’s why we’re here, AI comes with its own challenges. In particular, an AI can suffer from biases that would limit the usefulness, right? If AI thinks amateur means porn, then it doesn’t help us. So how do we address the bias in AI? Can we move to the next slide? Thank you. We specifically include training data, in this case, for protected minority groups. For example, Caucasian girls, Asian girls, Irish girls. And as you can see here, many patterns that we see as problematic are the same across groups. Black girl videos, white girl videos, something like that. And then when generating this training data for protected minority groups, we make use of these patterns to expand from one group to another automatically. And we can exploit the same kind of patterns, not only to address issues in biases of AI, but also in the biases of human races that generate this training data. Can we go to the next slide? Now, we have this wonderful approach, but does it actually work? To know that, we need to measure. To measure if they actually are successful in mitigating the biases, we see how our classifiers do as we compare across different slices. So are we, for example, as good or as bad as in a random other slice or in the whole slice? When we look at just queries touching on LGBTQ or touching on gender, touching on race. So a bit more formal, the probability of predicting this sort of porn could be the same for any slice of data, no matter what the slice is, given the same labels, given that it actually looks for porn or doesn’t. And compared to the baseline models that we had earlier or that we have without this corrective training data, we do see significant gains in equity, in being the same quality for in-slices and out-slices. And then as we added more methods and more data, we saw even further gains. And that’s this part. And then back to Emma.

Emma Higham:
Yes, I think this is really exciting to me because I think we often worry about, is the system working fairly for all user groups? Is the system working fairly and really representing the world in the way that it is fair to all user groups? What we’ve found here is that there’s a way to actually test that. And does that mean that every single system, when first naively built, is going to be fair? No, because it’s going to reflect biases and training data because it’s going to reflect the biases of people that may make it. That’s kind of true of any institution or system that we build. So that’s one way to hold our systems accountable. And what I’ve been really excited about with AI is both the power of the natural language processing that we’re seeing, the ability to understand users at scale across a wide range of locales, and understand the nuances of what they’re saying, while also holding that system accountable to making sure that it’s working fairly across all of these different groups. And I wanted to share that because what we’re also seeing is that similar to BERT, which is one form of natural language processing, we are also able to apply MUM, another very powerful system, to making our search results safer. So a critical example that’s really close to my heart is how we’ve applied MUM to improve personal crisis searches. We see queries like how to get help in search, queries, unfortunately, like, I want to kill myself. These are queries, which show the severity of a moment that a user is in. And they are not always written in naive terms, they’re not always written in a way that is easy for us to understand. With natural language processing, we’re able to translate the queries and say, this looks like a user may be in a moment of crisis, which makes us more able to return relevant results and return helpful resources. And, you know, for some of the severe queries I just mentioned, we really focus on partnering with NGOs around the world to provide helpful resources. And what we’re particularly excited about with MUM is that we’re able to be really effective across languages. There’s 75 locales where MUM is trained and operating highly effectively and that was the kind of power we were able to bring to the problem of personal crisis searches, leading to major improvements last year. So that’s it for today. We’re really excited to talk more about AI and how we’ve seen it work, not just be effective to the problem of being more inclusive across genders, but also to making systems safer at scale.

Moderator – Charles Bradley:
Thank you, Emma and Christian. I think it’s really useful to set us up with that. We needed to learn something new from today. I’ve got BERT, MUM, pattern matching, slices, lots of things that I have questions about. And I’m sure people want to dig into which we’ll get into in a bit, but that’s really, really sort of set the scene in very practical ways that this technology or technologies can be used for gender inclusivity. I’m going to come to Babina next from policy. So Babina, please introduce yourself and the floor is yours. Thank you.

Bobina Zulfa:
Sure. Good morning. Can you hear me? Yes, thanks. Perfect. Morning. It’s morning where I am. I understand it’s afternoon over there. A pleasure to be a part of this discussion. My name is Babina Zulfa and I’m a data digital rights researcher with Policy. So Policy is a feminist collective of researchers, academics, designers, etc. We work at the intersection of data, tech and society. So a lot of our work is socio-technical in a sense. So we are Pan-African and so a lot of our work just looks at how technologies are being adopted across the continent and how that is impacting communities in just different ways for the better or for worse. And we do that, especially through our research. We document that and come up with recommendations, particularly for government, but also now for other groups, civil society and technologists as well. I took this session over from Nima, who is our outgoing ED. She wasn’t able to be part of this, but it’s a pleasure to just be able to jump in and take this on. You did talk about tying in with the previous speakers and it’s interesting because I was thinking around, I guess I’ll jump into that in a bit. But I just did want to say that from the work we’ve been doing, we have a three-part report called Women in AI. So we’ve been looking at the intersection of gender and AI for the past maybe three years. And we’ve documented that and just looked at how these technologies are being used by African women who are in many ways, much less involved in terms of access, in terms of usage, meaningful usage, where there are limitations in terms of language, in terms of literacy, etc. But just recently, actually yesterday, we have a new handbook that just published. We’ve been doing the work with IDRC and this is sort of putting across draft principles to guide policymakers in thinking about how to govern these systems, but not just policymakers, civil society and technologists as well as they’re developing these systems. So just of the background, I think for my sharing today, I just wanted to point out that a lot of our work has been in a sense critical because we’re feminists and so we use the Afrofeminist lens to analyze this intersection that I’ve been talking about. And I’ll just start from a point of, I think something that for us we’ve been, especially with the last piece of work, the handbook that I’ve been talking about, is we’ve been broadly questioning the notion of as technologies are being developed and adopted across the continent. I’m noting this very much within our work, which is on the African continent, but I am. open to open this up, is that the notion of benefit, right, that these technologies are benefiting people in such and such a way. I think that’s a very broad term and our work has been working to, you know, sort of demystify that or just make that very clear what does benefit mean for different communities as maybe a model is being, there is satellite models we’re seeing that are being brought about to just maybe look at how much communities are getting electrified. What does that do for the communities as they’re maybe getting, you know, more surveilled and then losing their privacy. So we’ve just been working to understand that notion of benefit, what does benefit mean indeed. And so from that, we’ve been moving to a point of, you know, I think we did, we’ve seen that a lot of the research that’s being done around, you know, understanding ethics and responsibility when it comes to development and adoption of AI is the notion of safety and security. But I think we’re trying to move more to a place of emancipatory and liberatory AI. How do these technologies bring just more agency, more freedom, more non-discrimination, more equality for the people who these technologies are being, you know, created for or as governments are bringing them down onto the people for, you know, public benefit or private sector using them for whatever reasons. And so I’ll just say then that, you know, a number of things, I’ll just again, I think maybe quickly tie in with what Emma and Christian were sharing, which was something that I think I’d wanted to talk about a little, very interesting to hear about, for example, the MUM model and the crisis, you know, touches, that’s really, really interesting to hear about when you’re talking about the, you know, trying to shelter the users from the, say, explicit or graphic information. That’s something I think first we’ve been exploring on the other end, and just the, the, the, the, the broader trying to bring to question, how does that happen as you’re trying to clean up those data sets. So visibilizing of the workers who are behind doing that work. So I’ve been very interested in hearing that from both of you, Emma and Christian, because we’ve been talking so much about that, you know, in the broader, you know, data, just data justice and data exploitation conversation. Because we do know that these models, well, are, you know, of course, advancing greatly and are able to, in, you know, many ways, do sort of self cleaning. But there is again, you know, human labor that is doing that, that cleaning. And so what does that mean for the people that are doing that work? Is it what are the, you know, what’s their quality of life from doing that work? So that’s, that’s one of the things I just want to quickly tie that in with that with the, you know, bias and just trying to debias the systems. And then, just broadly, I think we’ve been looking at as our societies are increasingly data buying. And so part of that is, you know, intelligence systems are being taken up in different, you know, parts of our societies. We’ve been looking at, for example, femtech, which is, I think, something that’s becoming popular, especially here on the continent, where, for example, women haven’t typically had easy access to medical services. And now, there are these, you know, these, these are femtech apps that you could use, whether they’re menstrual health apps, or pregnancy apps. And now we’ve read work, for example, I think Mozilla has done a lot of work on this, showing that, you know, there is the consent, the regimes are faulty, or then they’re not very meaningful in the sense that the terms and conditions that are offered in there are sometimes just the legalese is too much for the people to understand, or they’re confusing, or they do live on certain notions where maybe your data will be shared with a third party. So these are just a number of issues that we’re exploring in our work as well. Meaningful consent, etc. We’re looking at also techno-chauvinism, as a lot of these technologies are being brought up. This is, I think, from Meredith Brewster’s work, we were looking at, you know, again, going back from where I started, which is, you know, the notion of benefits. Sometimes technologies are brought onto communities, and they do not do more good, and they do more harm. And so we’re questioning the notion of this notion of any and every technology is for the good. And so the moving away from the idea of techno-solutionism, and, you know, moving to a place of, you know, getting solutions on board that actually are relevant to communities needs and their realities, etc. So I think for us in our broader conversation, we find that we engage a lot with the conversation of power symmetries. Again, there is the developer, there is the end user. And along that, especially for the end user, how do these technologies, you know, impact their lives for better or for worse. And we look at that, and we find that usually it’s not uni-dimensional, usually it’s intersectional in a way, you know, you find if it is harm, it’s happening at a very intersectional level, at different levels. And so just to wrap up my submission, I just want to say for us, we’re very much interested in moving towards a place of, you know, realising AI technologies that are more, you know, liberatory and emancipatory to the communities that these technologies are being brought to. Thank you.

Moderator – Charles Bradley:
Thank you very much. Yeah, and really sort of helped paint a picture of the wide variety of ways that these technology can, you know, can be very beneficial and really improve on some of these values that we’ve been talking about. Jim, I’m going to pass you.

Jim Prendergast:
Testing. Oh, there we go. Sorry about that. So Charles, I just wanted to point out that we were supposed to have another academic present, Dr. Luciana Bonatti from the National University of Cordoba in Argentina. I guess being on the other side of the world, sometimes you miss news, but apparently there’s an outbreak of wildfires in that part of Argentina, and she and her family had to evacuate. So if she watches this down the road, we just want to let you know, we’re thinking of you, and we hope everything works out for you. And we look forward to working with you in the future.

Moderator – Charles Bradley:
Thanks, Jim. We’re going to go to Lucia at the OECD next. Over to you.

Lucia Russo:
Hello, good morning. Good afternoon. Thanks for the invitation for this very interesting panel. My name is Lucia Russo. I’m from the OECD, the Artificial Intelligence Unit, and I will talk a little bit about the OECD AI principles and the way they, excuse me, they promote gender equality in AI. So just as a bit of a background, what are the OECD AI principles? The OECD principles are a set of principles, an intergovernmental standard on artificial intelligence that were adopted in 2019, and were developed through a multi-stakeholder process that we involved over 50 experts with the objective of coming up with principles that would be a common guideline for countries and AI actors in developing transport AI and to steer technology in an innovative way, but also in a responsible way. These principles were also endorsed later on by the G20, and so we are today over, today 46 countries have adhered to these principles. These are principles that are not binding in nature, but still they represent a commitment from countries that adhere to them to steer technology in a way that is embedding those principles, and they are ten principles which are organized into five value-based principles and five recommendations to policy makers. So, in terms of the value-based, these are they call for promoting AI, which is aimed at inclusive growth, sustainable development and well-being, that embed human-centered values and fairness, AI that is transparent and explainable, safe, secure, and robust, and they call for actors to be accountable throughout the AI life cycle. And then, the five recommendations, which are policy makers, they call for promoting AI, which is aimed at inclusive growth, and safe, secure, and robust, and they call for actors to be accountable throughout the AI life cycle. And then, the five recommendations to government concern policy recommendations around investing in AI, research and development, fostering a digital ecosystem for AI, shaping and enabling policy environment, building human capacity and preparing for labor market transformation, and then, the six principles, which are the five principles, they are, first, they are touch, obviously, on gender equality, but in particular, the first and the second call on stakeholders to proactively engage in responsible stewardship of trustworthy AI in pursuit of beneficial outcomes for people on the planet, and in advancing inclusion of underrepresented people. And then, the second principle calls on AI actors to respect the rule of law, human rights, democratic values, and including non-discrimination and equality, diversity, and fairness. So, I would point to these two as perhaps the most relevant in this conversation, and then, obviously, these are very high-level guidelines for countries. So, what have we been doing and what are countries doing to implement those principles? So, since 2019, we have been working at the OECD to help countries implement in practical ways these principles, and we have been monitoring through the OECD AI Policy Observatory policies that countries have been putting in place to meet, to address all of these principles. So, here, obviously, I won’t be exhaustive. I wanted just to point to a few examples of policies that have been adopted, implemented in countries. For instance, in the United States, when we talk about, well, we know that to make AI more inclusive and also to reduce bias and increase fairness, one important aspect that was discussed by Google is about data quality. And so, in the United States, an example is the Artificial Intelligence Machine Learning Consortium to advance health equity and researcher diversity that basically is a program that aims to make electronic health record data more representative so that training data is of higher quality, but also to increase the participation and representation of researchers from underrepresented communities in AI and machine learning, so that basically algorithm bias is ensured by including data from different genders, ethnicities, and backgrounds, but also by a more diverse representation in AI development. And, again, in another example, fostering inclusivity and equity in AI development is a program in the UK promoted by Alan Turing Institute, which is Women in AI and Data Science. And here, there are three pillars to this program. First one, map the participation of women in data science and AI in the UK, but also globally, with the ultimate objective of increasing women participation in these fields. Second, examine diversity and inclusion in online and physical workplace. And last, exploring how gender gap affects scientific knowledge and technology, technological innovation, and then promoting gender inclusive AI design. So, these are two examples. And then last two points I would make, there are also other approaches taken by countries, for instance, in the Netherlands and Finland, there have been attempts to build guidelines and assessment frameworks for non-discriminatory AI systems that basically help identify and manage risk of discrimination, especially in public sector AI systems. And so, these are guidelines for especially public servants when they use or procure AI systems. And the last point is, last year, we launched a catalog of tools still on the same platform, the OECD AI Policy Observatory, and this is really a platform that is intended to share tools for trustworthy AI, and basically institutions around the globe can submit tools so that other organizations can use them in their work. And just having a quick check, so it’s a searchable database where you can search for objectives that these tools are aimed at achieving, and for instance, looking at reducing bias and discrimination and ensure fairness. We have over 100 tools, and for instance, one that I was checking yesterday came up is at Google, the People Plus AI Research multidisciplinary team that explores the human side of AI. So, this is one example. Other example is, for instance, a tool which is called CounterGen, which is a framework for auditing and reducing bias in NLP, and basically, it generates counterfactual data sets. So, comparing the output of a model between cases where the input is a member of protected category and two cases where it’s not. So, these are just examples. One can search and browse for more. So, I wanted to give a bit of an overview of things that exist, but obviously, this is all illustrative, and I look forward to questions and discussion. Thank you.

Moderator – Charles Bradley:
Thank you so much, Lucia. There’s so much in what you said. I’m sort of trying to scrabble around your website to find all the amazing resources that you shared. So, maybe we can pick back up some of those points because they also tie back into some of the key ones earlier around data, like proving that we know what is happening, baselining, and trying to improve outcomes, and it feels like that might be something that we sort of want to dig into a bit more as we get into this discussion. I’m going to pass to our last speaker, Jenna.

Jenna Manhau Fung:
Thank you. Thank you for having me on this panel today. My name is Jenna Fung. I am the program coordinator of the Asia Pacific Youth Internet Governance Forum. As I share my thoughts, I will perhaps change my head a little bit, but to start with, I probably will refer most of the outcomes from our regional output as well as some response to all the information we just got. I came from a background that’s totally not technical. I don’t have research background either, and so this is a really fruitful sharing earlier to me, and I actually was assigned to give reactions, and so I was paying so much attention, and it actually made me thought of a few points, but I will share it at the end of my speech because I probably want to point out a few things that the Asia Pacific Youth actually talked about. While most of the people, and I think we have had enough session at IGF that talks a lot, how we concern about the impact and risk with AI and the implication of it, but maybe because with the youth, because of our lack of experience and expectation and knowledge, we are quite positive. That’s my observation by working closely with the youth, but of course, with that group of youth, it’s just Asia Pacific voice. We know that there’s like majorities of the online populations are formed by young people, but we don’t really get to invite all of them to our conference, so this is still just a representation of voice, but what we see is that when we erase those knowledge and baggage or things that adult would usually carry, the younger generations are quite positive, and the reality is we must implement these things to our everyday life because I personally see it that way as well, and I think with the technology, especially after Christian’s and Emma’s sharing, I really think that AI can eliminate human bias, which is something we unconsciously act out and we don’t know, and so I am positive about that, just like, just name some examples. I’m an Asian, and sometimes just picking up, we might use marginalised group or minority to describe certain groups of people, but with that, that means we unconsciously subscribe to certain ideas, that’s why we have that kind of concept, right? But earlier with Lucia, and use a different adjective to use, I think Lucia actually used underrepresented group instead, which is rather neutral. We did not intentionally do that, but we would have this kind of bias sometimes, and I do think technologies can help us with that, and, of course, because we will have policy in place where we, I believe everyone who is in this room will subscribe to the ideas of having a multi-stakeholder approach, my assumption, to form these policies, and if those policies are in place, I believe we can proactively eliminate this kind of bias that we don’t intentionally send out. And so, just bringing in some ideas from the youth forum that we had, I think it’s really important to get the users, the consumer, to co-design all these policies, and also have like technical community to be involved in policy-making as well, because they have the knowledge about the technologies, but not all of them, like currently might be included in all levels of policy-making, and so if we have them participate more into this process of making policy for like such complex technologies like AI, I think that will be really important as well. And I believe international standards are really important, because that’s how different countries can modernize their legal framework, and so that they can cater the needs of their own nations, and it will also help different industries to follow and to handle their space, because, for example, what I see is that Big Tech is running most of the service platform where I live on. I am a Gen Z. So these are privately owned public space, which govern and regulated by private sector. And I think international standards is really important because that will provide a comprehensive guideline for that, which is human centric, as another speaker mentioned. And before I wrapped up, I want to take this opportunity to probably bring out just something really personal. I hope that I am not appear to being too rude. Other than my usual work with the youth, I am a writer. And I have a Substack newsletter. But I am a really small scale writer. And so I don’t really get the money to pay and get my own domain. And so my newsletter is actually not really appearing on Google search result because of the policies between probably, well, I don’t really have the knowledge. But I assume it’s like the policy between Google and Substack. And I think there might be something to do with Substack. They changed policy at some point, which my newsletter is not showing on Google anymore. And so that’s just one personal example that I want to throw it here. Because Google, it’s one of the biggest search engines that adopt by most people in this world. And I just wonder, if we are talking about inclusivity, how can we or how can enterprise put a mechanism in place to ensure small scales writer, for example, in my case, to be included as well. But yeah, thank you so much.

Moderator – Charles Bradley:
Thank you very much. Yes, really good points raised from the, obviously, the conversations you’ve been having with youth community before and before. And a very specific question at the end that we might want to take offline to someone that might know the answer to that one. We’re going to start getting people involved and have a proper conversation. So if there are things to come along, please do put it in the chat if you’re online or raise your hand. I wanted to first come back to Emma and Christian. And I’m definitely going to come to people who have good questions. And also, there was a point from Lucio’s talked about the sort of counterfactual fairness at Google. And I wanted to see whether Emma or Christian, you could share a bit more about your experience of that, if you can answer that.

Christian von Essen:
Yeah. I’m happy to talk about that. We’ve had a similar approach. And I have this slide with these. We see similar patterns, right? This replacement there is exactly the counterfactual similarity that we are trying to get here. This has been central and super useful to us. What also is helpful is ablation of certain terms. Sorry, yes?

Moderator – Charles Bradley:
I was going to ask, could you give us a 10-second definition of what that means for people who might not know what counterfactual fairness means in that context?

Christian von Essen:
Yes, of course. So the idea is when you take a user’s query, for example, and it has a marginalized minority group in there, like, I don’t know, black woman video, then the likelihood that a classifier predicts something about this person for this query should be the same for black woman video as for the counterfactual query, where you replace black woman video with black man video, or white woman video. If you replace these terms, the output of the classifier should not change significantly. The other part, then, is ablation. It shouldn’t matter much whether you talk about black woman video, black woman dress, or just woman dress. That is also essential to what we’ve been doing here. But if you do this counterfactual fairness, you’re still sticking, in a certain sense, to a slice of the data. We are still sticking to gender terms, race terms. Also, outside of these slices, these particular slices, the behavior of these methods of these classifiers and systems should be the same. Doesn’t matter if we’re talking about genders or LGBTQ queries. The quality of the classifiers between these slices needs to be the same as well. That’s the metric part that we had. So counterfactual is great, ablation is great, and then we go beyond that. But it’s a fantastic first step to augment your training data to get the classifiers to say the right things and be fair.

Moderator – Charles Bradley:
And then, sorry, Emma.

Emma Higham:
Yeah, I was just going to say, I think a lot of this is about asking your system questions and seeing how it performs. And what you really want is to be able to ask the question of black woman hairstyles, white woman hairstyles, see are we getting results that we consider to be equivalent, see what happens if we type in the query hairstyles. There will always be some disparity because these systems are operating at mass scale. But we aim to have a way to hold the system accountable and reduce any disparity that we see. And I think I did hear a question earlier on. I think it was from Zulfa around data justice. I think one thing that I’ve been impressed by here is that these systems are able to learn from patterns such that sometimes you can have a relatively small amount of data to start to interrogate the system. And you can see that a system is not behaving well with just a few examples. You don’t have to find every potential item in a large set of potential identity groups in order to interrogate the system. You just need a few to say, is this system behaving wrong? And that already helps. So this idea of small data being enough to interrogate the system has been very powerful.

Moderator – Charles Bradley:
Are there any questions on this point particularly? So we can carry on this thought. Yes, please.

Audience:
Thank you very much for all the sharing. It’s really interesting. So I have a bit of a specific question. So it’s on leveraging AI to reach a goal of gender inclusivity. But to what extent is this corrections you’re talking about that are happening after? So in terms of fine tuning rather than beforehand, which is when you’re feeding in the training data. Because I think there was a recently published article about a study from the University of Pittsburgh about how there is no clear data, no clear percentage of how much of the training data being used to train these LLM, how much of it is women-authored data. And so it perpetuates the gender gap. Because, OK, when you’re looking at the digital divide between Global North and Global South, then if you look closely at those online in the Global South, more likely they’re going to be male users online. And then so I just want thoughts on what do you feel about this particular problem that is it more fine tuning that’s happening after you’re finding these bias outputs? Or how much percentage of effort is going into looking at using more diverse training data?

Moderator – Charles Bradley:
Thank you very much. I think that’s for Google.

Christian von Essen:
Yeah, so in the beginning a few years ago, when we started with BERT and the language models became bigger, and the first step was to create models that are credible and useful at all, it was more of a fine tuning step later to address and correct these biases. But as we’re getting more into even larger models where training data selection now becomes a more challenging problem, and where also these kinds of concerns have spread more through the community and get more scrutiny not only outside, but also from communities inside Google, this gets more and more into the first step of training. So before fine tuning is happening, correcting the first step of data and making sure that that is representative gets ever more into that first step as well. And fine tuning and first step also get ever more mixed and intermingled. So that the question as such becomes very tricky to answer. Where does the first step end and fine tuning get started as we’re talking about mixtures of training?

Emma Higham:
Yeah, I mean, I would just plus one. I think these things are increasingly very, very intermingled. But what you do see is what an amazing technology. So let’s see what this technology can do. As we’re applying this new technology, how could we design it in a safe way? How could we design it in a way that it’s inclusive? You look at that first version of the technology. And then the first thing you do before you think about bringing it to market is you interrogate it. You do the fine tuning based on those tests. And then if it didn’t work well, you go back to the first step again. So this is really cyclical. And there are many layers at which we can hold our systems accountable. Often, you have foundational models that you’re using for lots of different use cases. And you want to make sure those are working well, as well as specific use cases, seeing how it’s behaving in context and making sure that in context it’s working well for users for a specific product experience. Great question.

Moderator – Charles Bradley:
Yeah, very good. While we’re still on the point, Lucia, is there advice, tools, resources on this particular point on the OECD that we should be looking at?

Lucia Russo:
Well, not on this specific. No, we are more on analyzing the big trends. So just to mention that we have two papers on generative AI, one that is really analyzing some preliminary considerations around these aspects that have been discussed, like what are these models, how they are evolving, what kind of policy implications they have around safety, for instance, and what kind of measures are developers implementing. So this is one paper. And then there is another paper that we did to support this G7 Hiroshima process around generative AI. And basically, there is an analysis of what countries, based on a questionnaire to G7 members, on what countries feel are the main risks around generative AI but also the main opportunities, and so what kind of actions internationally can be undertaken. So this is more in terms of, again, on policy responses. This is the contribution from the OECD, very much enjoying the conversation to understand better at which point you can intervene. This is very enlightening for us as well.

Moderator – Charles Bradley:
Great, yeah, absolutely. And obviously, the role that you’re playing on the bigger picture of this conversation, it’s sort of critical to get into the real weeds here, because the devil is really in the detail, isn’t it? We have a question online, and then.

Audience:
Yeah, thanks, Charles. So it’s from Samridhi Kumar. It’s a bit of a comment and a question. I think I still remain a tad bit skeptical about how AI and gender inclusivity may interact, especially when AI may present itself as a popular tool for surveilling people based on gender. What are the possible solutions for this dilemma?

Moderator – Charles Bradley:
Babina, what do you think? How could it be a solution to this dilemma? What are the solutions here?

Bobina Zulfa:
I think it’s a lot of things that the panel is trying to speak directly to here. But I think I share the sentiment with the person who asked the question that I’m also very skeptical as to how realistic some of these things are or how feasible they are. So for example, the persons from Google have been sharing how from the previous question, when the person asked about the training data sets as opposed to fine tuning. And then, Emma, I think you did share your optimism that we do have a good tool. And we can, before we send it out to the market, get it in a much better place before we send it out to the communities. But I think that, in a sense, again, is the, I mean, I think for me, and this may tie in with Lucia’s work as well with some of the work we’re doing on the regulatory arm of things, is it comes into balance out competing interests. Because there is Google, which is developing these technologies. And there is a number of interests that they have from the information sharing to being a profit-making company as well, to the communities or the persons that these technologies are being pushed out to the end user, who these technologies could pose real-life impacts on. And so I think, for me, it’s just, I think we just need to be very intentional about thinking about these things from the get-go. And I think it’s a lot of what we are reiterating here, everyone else of us. It could be with our OECD’s principles, thinking about these things from the get-go as we’re getting into development, even from the ideation stage. And then I think then we think about how more intersectionally factoring in these factors, as opposed to waiting to, oh, we push this out. And then, oh, we can now try to, we’re putting fires out, in a sense. And so, for example, the data issue, I am very skeptical as well when you mention that small data sets. I do totally agree these technologies have immensely evolved, and they’re able to use just small data sets to just do so many of these things you’ve been talking about, like looking out for bias, et cetera. But then again, that speaks to, again, someone mentioned this, if we do have limited data sets that are not representative of a big part of maybe the global majority, how do we expect, realistically, that not to reflect in the products that are pushed out at the end? And so I think it’s a lot of the caution, or the skepticism has been expressed through a lot of scholars’ work over the last year or two. And I think a number of principles, like the OECD is doing, UNESCO, et cetera, the work we’re doing, and so many other organizations, civil society, et cetera, are saying, are factoring these things from the get-go, and think about these things from the get-go. And then that could counter the skepticism, because then we’re sure that we are pushing out products that are safe and are going to actually be of benefit to the person that these products are being pushed out to.

Moderator – Charles Bradley:
Thank you. Yeah, we gave you the really hard question, so thank you for giving us such an eloquent answer to it. We have another question in the room. Andrew.

Audience:
Thanks, Anne. Thanks, Google, for the opening presentation, which is kind of interesting to get a bit more into the weeds about how you actually are trying to manage these problems. And I guess my question is a bit about the value of non-binding principles. There are currently about over 40 international processes setting out how to govern AI. A couple are binding, European. There’s a cluster of UN ones which may go nowhere. And there’s 25-plus voluntary non-binding initiatives being developed by a variety of industry and other types of bodies. And I just queried the value of endlessly producing high-level sets of principles, which don’t overlap or aren’t consistent, but may all offer slightly different variations. And it strikes me what was interesting about the Google presentation is what would be of real value to the wider public would be something that I think doesn’t yet exist, which is a mechanism to independently audit what you’re doing to assess whether the steps you’re taking at the engineering level are actually producing the outcomes that you want to be desirable. And if they do, you get some kind of kite mark or some recognition that what you’re doing with AI is actually fulfilling those wider social goals. And it strikes me that that would be, given the time, money, and effort that goes into things like the IGF, which is a whole series of fairly non-binding conversations or these voluntary principles, whether investing some of that time and money in developing those independent audit mechanisms might be a more useful use of the planet’s resources in terms of getting at what we want to get at.

Moderator – Charles Bradley:
I think I’ll let the OECD respond first. Lucia.

Lucia Russo:
OK. Well, thank you. So I’ve never done an analysis of all of the principles that exist, so I don’t know to which extent it’s fair to say that they don’t overlap, because I would assume that there is a large overlapping among these principles. And for instance, if one takes, well, recently the UK came up with their approach to AI regulation, and that is based on, again, high-level principles, cross-sectoral principles. And they do overlap to a large extent, or even almost all of the principles overlap with the OECD principles. The same, I don’t know, the NIST management framework in the US, it’s really closely linked to the work of the OECD. We did a classification framework for AI systems, but basically what it says is that not all AI systems are equal. They don’t have the same risks. They don’t have the same impact on the different contexts they work in. So there needs to be this risk-based approach, which is something that is becoming the approach taken in most jurisdictions. Even the UAI Act takes a risk-based approach by classifying risks of AI systems and having provisions related to the different systems based on the risk category they fall in. So I’m just saying I understand the concern of having a plethora of principles. I don’t think there is a hierarchy of principles, yet there are, I think, some principles that are being implemented more uniformly across countries and with some variation, of course. And I have not done this exercise, but perhaps try and check where they overlap, because I’m sure there is a lot that has to do, again, with fairness, with transparency, with accountability, and safety, security. So I understand, and I think it’s a fair concern to say that everyone is doing its own principles. Perhaps there is also, I mean, this is also a very new field. Everything is in the making, so even regulation. is experimenting really and trying to understand what’s the best approach. So I would say, yeah, perhaps there needs to be some more alignment and there are attempts lately to have more international coordination. As I was saying, the G7 is one. The UK is promoting this safety summit at beginning of November. The UN is also advancing work. So I think there are activities to come together and have more coordination on that. And I think the mechanism of auditing the systems that I agree there is not such a thing yet. When it comes, certainly with standards and with the UIAC, there will be a check on the system. So it won’t be perhaps the same thing that it was proposed. But I think there is a lot that is in the making. So all of this is just being developed right now. So I don’t have a full answer. I’m sorry, it’s a very difficult question. But I just want to say that there are a lot of discussions and there is a lot of commonalities, despite the fact that there seems to be a lot of lack of convergence. And yeah, that’s what I wanted to say.

Moderator – Charles Bradley:
Thank you. Yeah, and I think the sort of the principles have started to sort of, the principles work that’s been going on for a while now has started to sort of give us the train tracks for the regulation that is coming. And that has a lot more, obviously a lot more teeth to it. And that might sort of get to some of the points that Andrew was raising. Does anyone else want to come on this point before I ask another question from the panel? No. I suppose one of the things that comes, any more questions in the room whilst we’re before? One of the things this sort of gets to is trust in measurement. Like Google have, and Christian have given us this great presentation around what you’re already doing to measure bias and reduce sort of certain biases in that, in your work, and also how you’ve been able to reduce shocking offensive content through some of the technologies that you’ve used. But we’ve also heard the sort of the flip of that, which is sort of Google marking its own sort of homework and showing that how you’re measuring against your own known biases and how you’re improving your own system against your own sort of measurements. So I think it’s sort of, some of this is really about how do we build trust in that measurement and in that system. And I wonder whether any of the panelists had some thoughts on that. So if we’re going to use AI and we believe in the potential of AI to increase gender inclusivity, how do we know that it’s actually doing that? And do we trust that? And how might we trust that more? Any sort of reflections or thoughts on that from the panel? Or anyone in the room? Thank you.

Audience:
Can I just repeat my plea for independent audit process? I mean, the only way you know is, if you don’t trust the company to mark its own homework, someone else has to mark the homework. And I think my point is, going back to the OECD, I’m not saying there aren’t, I think there is agreement, fairness, inclusivity, there’s a set of things we already know we want AI to do or need to do. What we don’t have is any method of assessing whether any of the applications are actually doing it. And that’s where I’m saying time and investment needs to go within the wider community rather than in doing yet more sets of principles. So I think the independent audit is the key thing. And I have no reason to distrust what Google are doing. You know, on the basis of what I’ve heard today, it sounds perfectly credible, perfectly sensible, and they’re trying to work with the limitations of data, et cetera. But obviously for the rest of the wider public, it needs to be audited in some way to satisfy us that gender equality is being promoted through these kinds of systems. And surely that is where the conversation should be and where the investment should be and not on high level principles and the endless discussion of high level principles, which has gone on in IGFs from year after year for like 20 years. Thank you, sorry.

Moderator – Charles Bradley:
Yes.

Emma Gibson – audience:
Hi, I’m Emma Gibson from the Alliance for Universal Digital Rights or AUDRI for short. And I definitely agree with the gentleman who’s talking about independent audits. But unfortunately, I also want to introduce another set of principles that we launched this week. It’s the Principles for a Feminist Global Digital Compact. And it’s 10 principles. And one of them is around adopting equality by design principles and a human rights based approach throughout all phases of digital technology development. And the Equal Rights Trust last week launched some equality by design principles themselves. And really that is including things like gender rights, impact assessments, incorporating them into the development of algorithmic decision making systems or digital systems prior to deployment. So whatever you call them, there absolutely is appetite for that kind of thing. And they do need to be independent to make sure that we’re not amplifying and perpetuating existing biases.

Moderator – Charles Bradley:
Thank you. I think we should come back to some of the challenges that this technology might also be able to help with. So we were trying to get the session to focus on ways in which AI can solve some of these problems. And I wonder whether there are like particular challenges that the panel people in the room think that we should be spending our time, effort, money on, that we can actually sort of promote gender inclusivity and inequality. Like what should we be focusing on and how might AI help us do that? Or other examples of things that are already sort of underway very practically.

Lucia Russo:
Maybe I’ll go first. And here, I’m not going to talk about the technical tools. I would go more broadly, I think, around, again, what kind of policy actions can be put in place to increase gender equality in AI. One, when we talk about gender equality, when we look at data on AI, on women representation in AI, the landscape is still very much not very positive for women. So we know that in OECD countries, more than twice as many young men than women can program, which is essential for AI development. So there is already this discrepancy. Then in terms of AI researchers, only one in four researchers publishing on AI worldwide is a woman. So there is, again, not fair representation in AI research. And when we look at developers, again, this share, it’s even lower. From a 2022 survey of Stack Overflow users, only 4% of respondents were female. And LinkedIn data suggests that female professional with AI skills represent less than 2% of workers in most countries. So I would say that there are still policies, basic policies that concern really development of AI-specific skills for women that are essential. As we said at the beginning, I mean, one key aspect is to increase women representation in design of the systems, in research of the systems. So this is a key policy that countries should look at. And there are countries, obviously, already doing that by promoting, by promoting scholarships or even programs at universities in Germany, for instance, sorry, providing funding to women-led research teams in AI. So I would say there is some policies that countries can certainly do, that is really to address one key gender gap, which is the one of representation of women in AI research. So that’s what, yeah, what I would suggest to increase gender, this is, to increase gender, reduce gender gaps, this is essential.

Moderator – Charles Bradley:
Thank you very much. Emma, I think I want to come to you actually, if that’s okay. And because obviously you’ve shared us a little bit about how you’re using AI for safe search and the sort of ranking. I wonder whether you had any more like specific examples that you could talk to and how like inclusion is being used in those products as well.

Emma Higham:
Yeah, absolutely. I mean, one of the things I’m really excited about is how AI is improving our ability to do language understanding and to understand concepts at scale. One area that I’ve seen this have significant impact is a product I used to work on, Google Translate, where products like Google Translate, Google Search, we are actually all able to test them. We use them, many of us, every day. And we find when they don’t work well for us, and we hear that from users. One thing that we heard in the past was during Women’s World Cup, women would be typing in queries like France versus Brazil, and you’d find that it would take you to the men’s football team. Typing in the England team, you see the men’s team. That’s something that we heard from users That’s something that we heard from users. We heard scrutinized, and we looked to solve. Actually, it was a non-trivial problem to solve as we had to build the right partnerships. But this year, we were pleased to see that we were able to address that. The Women’s World Cup, you could get easy and accessible results about women’s football in just the same form factor that you could for men’s. That’s a great example of how users held us accountable and were able to improve our systems. In the same way for Google Translate, we’ve seen that there were some cases where translations were, in the past, not fully inclusive. This can be because language is very complex around the way that we think about gender in different languages. It’s not always easy for a computer to translate that well. But as we have seen AI get better at pattern matching, and our systems, our internal accountability, our internal ability to test these systems at scale, we have seen that Google Translate has got significantly better in this regard. And we’ve been able to test and validate that Translate is working across a wide range of languages in a way that we think is really effective for understanding gender in different ways. One specific example about a recent application of this is I can actually now talk to Translate and tell it in what form factor I want to be speaking. Do I want to be speaking in the formal version? Do I want to translate something so that it is in feminine tense or male tense? And this means we no longer need to default, right? We don’t need to make assumptions around, were you talking about a male audience or a female audience? We can set that in the tool. And this is the kind of thing that’s now possible and newly possible because of this technology. I hope that made sense. But I think the thing I’m excited about here is you’ve all been holding us accountable for many years. That’s one of the great things about working at Google is users hold us to a high standard. And I’m excited about AI as a tool that helps us meet that high standard better.

Moderator – Charles Bradley:
Thank you. Yeah, and it made a lot of sense. And it’s just really good to hear these very practical but very large impact shifts that are really starting to dig into the question here. And it’s things that impact people on a day-to-day basis as well, which I think is really good. And Google’s been particularly good at solving for day-to-day problems. It’s built quite a large business out of it. Everyone here who doesn’t speak Japanese has probably used Google Translate or Lens or something to navigate the street signs or the menus this week. I definitely have. Any final questions or thoughts from the room? Yes, please. Yeah, come and take the mic. Thank you.

Audience:
Hello. Yes, my name is Natalia. I’m working in the field of education. And what Luchiy just mentioned really resonates with me. I work in Cambodia for the past eight years, and I’m the founder of the first female coding club. And the representation of women in the field of technology is extremely low. It’s even lower than Luchiy has mentioned. And if you type in Google search Asian programmer out of 20 images, you will see maybe one or two Asian faces as programmers. But at the same time, like AI adoption and the growth is giving me a lot of positive vision because I do believe that actually, especially generative AI tools may bring a lot of opportunities for female workers in the field. As we know, most of the girls would choose a social or humanitarian subject. And this is where generative AI can be really a great field for the development and application of these interests in human science and social science interests in human science and social science mixed with technology. However, my question is, how can the policymakers make sure that this component of the broader introduction and engagement of female workers and students would be applied across the world? I work in Cambodia where only 1.2% of girls choose to study technology. This is extremely low. And Khmer language, like in Google, they don’t use, it’s not that very well working yet. So there are many barriers and I really wanna see much more focus on the upskilling, reskilling and introduction of female voice in the field of AI. And I think generative AI is a great pipeline for that. So are there any comments or I would like to hear? Thank you.

Moderator – Charles Bradley:
Thank you. Thank you very much. Lucia, are there any sort of thoughts, work from the OECD on this? You touched on the same sort of deficit earlier.

Lucia Russo:
Yeah. I mean, it’s one point that actually I forgot to make on the positive side is indeed that generative AI can help because you have a coding co-pilots that actually can speed up time to code. And I think it can also be a tool for people to learn much quickly to code. So there may be some, as it was suggested, some opportunities there that are from generative AI. The one thing of course is that the language that is trained, the generative AI large language models are trained on the data needs to be there. So what we see is also a lot of investment in training large language models in languages other than English. And so this is one thing that needs to be also promoted by countries so that these models exist not only for the languages that have the most of the data. And then in terms of policies, again, that is the question, how do you bring more interest for women? And I think one of the motivation that it was mentioned that is key. So we have been in a lot of policies like coding from earlier age, but also, as I said, scholarships, but also role models are quite important to make young girls also identify with type of jobs that they could take on later on. So this is a big question, how you have more women in science. But as I said, there are examples that span this kind of policy actions.

Moderator – Charles Bradley:
Thank you very much. Yeah, and yeah, definitely multifaceted challenge to do that. But I think the point here is that this becomes something that’s in our sort of day-to-day apparatus and therefore people are gonna be more interested in being part of it. So thank you, Natalia, for that comment and question. We’re coming to the end. I wanna sort of wrap up in about 30 seconds or so, but I wanted to just see if any of our panelists had anything burning they wanted to share or respond to before I did that. No. Great, well, huge thank you to our panelists for joining us in a wide variety of time zones and appreciate you staying up or getting up early to do so. I definitely found it a very interesting conversation. We were able to get into some of the practical aspects of this topic. We also touched on the multi-layered and complex nature of this topic as well. And I think that it’s been really good to see that there’s a lot of interest in developing solutions that can solve this problem with more people from a more inclusive way. We’ve had some principles launched in the session. We’ve had some discussions about the value of principles in the session. We’ve had some very practical data and sort of measures sort of shared. So I’ve learned something and thank you for doing that and for being part of this conversation. And with that, I would like to close the session, say thank you again and hope to see you all again soon. Thanks, bye.

Emily Bender

The analysis discussed various aspects of language models (LLMs) and artificial intelligence (AI). One key point raised was the limitation of web data scraping for training LLMs. Speakers highlighted that the current data collection for LLMs is often haphazard and lacks consent. They argued that this indiscriminate scraping of web data can violate privacy, copyright, and consent. Sacha Costanza-Chock’s concept of consentful technology, which emphasises meaningful opt-in data collection, was presented as a better alternative.

The speakers also stressed that LLMs are not always reliable sources of information. They pointed out that LLMs reflect biases of the Global North due to data imbalance. This uneven representation can lead to skewed outputs and perpetuate existing inequalities. Therefore, there were concerns about incorporating LLMs into search engines, as it could amplify these biases and hinder the dissemination of objective and diverse information.

Another topic of discussion was the risks associated with synthetic media spills. Speakers highlighted that synthetic media can easily spread to other internet sites, raising concerns about disinformation and misinformation. They recommended that synthetic text should be properly marked and tracked in order to enable detection and ensure accountability.

On the positive side, the analysis explored approaches to detect AI-generated content. Speakers acknowledged that once synthetic text is disseminated, it becomes difficult to detect. However, they expressed optimism that watermarking could serve as a potential solution to track AI-generated content and differentiate it from human-generated content.

In terms of reframing discussions, there was a call to shift the focus from AI to automation. By doing so, a clearer understanding of the societal impact can be achieved, ensuring that potential risks are thoroughly assessed.

Regarding language-related AI models, speakers emphasized the importance of not conflating them and carefully considering their usage in different tasks. This highlights the need for a nuanced approach that takes into account the specific capabilities and limitations of different AI models for various language processing tasks.

The analysis also emphasized the importance of communities having control over their data for cultural preservation. Speakers stressed that languages belong to their respective communities, and they should have the power to determine how their data is used. The ‘no-language-left-behind’ model, which aims to preserve all languages, was criticized as being viewed as a colonialist project that fails to address power imbalances and the profits gained by multinational corporations. It was argued that if profit is to be made from language technology in the Global South, it should be reinvested back into the communities.

In summary, the analysis delved into the complexities and challenges surrounding LLMs and AI. It highlighted the limitations of web scraping for data collection and the associated concerns of privacy, copyright, and consent. The biases in LLMs and the potential risks of incorporating them into search engines were thoroughly discussed. The analysis also examined the risks and detection of synthetic media spills, as well as the need for reframing discussions about AI in terms of automation. The importance of considering language-related AI models in different tasks and the control of data by communities were underscored. Criticisms were made of the ‘no-language-left-behind’ model and the profiting of multinational corporations in the Global North from language technology in the Global South.

Diogo Cortiz da Silva

The use of the web as a data source for training large language models (LLMs) has sparked concerns surrounding user consent, copyright infringement, and privacy. These concerns raise ethical and legal questions about the sources of the data and the permissions granted by users. Furthermore, there are concerns about potential copyright violations when LLMs generate content that closely resembles copyrighted works. Privacy is also a major concern as the web contains vast amounts of personal and sensitive information, and using this data without proper consent raises privacy implications.

In response to these concerns, tech companies such as OpenAI and Google are actively working on developing solutions to provide users with greater control over their content. These companies recognise the need for transparency and user consent and are exploring ways to incorporate user preferences and permissions into their LLM training processes. By giving users more control, these companies aim to address the ethical and legal challenges associated with web data usage.

The incorporation of LLMs into search engines has the potential to significantly impact web traffic and the digital economy. This integration raises policy questions regarding the potential risks and regulatory complexities of using LLMs as chatbot interfaces. As LLMs become more sophisticated, integrating them into search engines could revolutionise the way users interact with online platforms and consume information. However, there are concerns about the accuracy and reliability of LLM-driven search results, as well as the potential for biased or manipulative outcomes.

In addition to these concerns, the association of generative AI with web content presents challenges related to the detection, management, and accountability of sensitive content. Generative AI technologies have the capability to autonomously produce and post web content, raising queries about how to effectively monitor and regulate this content. Detecting and managing sensitive or harmful content is crucial in ensuring the responsible use of generative AI while addressing the potential risks associated with false information, hate speech, or illegal materials. Similarly, holding responsible parties accountable for the content generated by AI systems remains a complex issue.

To address these challenges, technical and governance approaches are being discussed. These approaches aim to strike a balance between innovation and responsible use of AI technologies. By implementing robust systems for content detection and moderation, as well as establishing clear accountability frameworks, stakeholders can work towards effectively managing generative AI-driven web content.

In conclusion, the use of the web as a training data source for LLMs has raised concerns regarding user consent, copyright infringement, and privacy. Tech companies are actively working on providing users with more control over their content to address these concerns. The integration of LLMs into search engines has the potential to impact web traffic and the digital economy, leading to policy questions about potential risks and regulatory complexities. The association of generative AI with web content raises queries about detecting sensitive content and ensuring accountability. Technical and governance approaches are being explored to navigate these challenges and foster responsible and ethical practices in the use of LLMs and generative AI technologies.

Audience

The discussion revolved around various topics related to the effects of generative AI and LLM (Large Language Models) development. Julius Endert from Deutsche Welle Academy is currently researching the impact of generative AI on freedom of speech. This research sheds light on the potential consequences of AI on individuals’ ability to express themselves.

The regulation of LLM development was also discussed during the session. The representative from META suggested that regulation should focus on the outcome of LLM development, rather than the process itself. This raises the question of how to strike the right balance between regulating the technology and ensuring positive outcomes.

The control of platforms and social media was another aspect of the discussion. It was noted that a few businesses have significant control over these platforms and the development of LLMs. This concentration of power raises concerns about competition and potential limitations on innovation.

The role of the state and openness in regulating LLMs was a topic of inquiry. The participants examined the role that the state should play in regulating LLM development and how to promote openness in this process. However, there was no clear consensus on this issue, highlighting the complexity of governing emerging technologies.

The discussion also explored the neutrality of technology, recognizing that different people have different values and use contexts for technology. It was acknowledged that technology is not inherently neutral, and its use and creation context vary among individuals and values.

Transparency in content creation by large language models was another area of concern. Unlike web page content and search engines, large language models lack clear mechanisms for finding and controlling content. This lack of transparency raises questions about the responsibility for the content created by these models and how stakeholders should be considered.

The discussion emphasized the need for the alignment of values in language models, with participation from different languages and communities. This inclusive approach recognizes the importance of diverse perspectives and ensures that the values embedded in language models reflect the needs and voices of various groups.

The notion of the internet as a ‘public knowledge infrastructure’ was also brought up, advocating for shaping the governance aspects of the internet to align with this goal. This highlights the need to democratize access to information and knowledge.

Furthermore, the economic aspects of content creation and the internet were given attention. It was noted that these aspects are often overlooked in discussions on internet governance. Participants argued for engaging in discussions about taxing and financing the internet and multimedia, particularly when creating new economic revenue streams for quality content.

These discussions provide valuable insights into the complexities and potential consequences of generative AI and LLM development. They underscore the importance of careful regulation, transparency, inclusivity, and economic considerations to ensure that these technologies are leveraged for the benefit of society. The discussions also highlight the significance of promoting openness and preserving freedom of speech in the digital era.

Dominique Hazaël Massieux

The analysis examines several aspects related to LLMs and web data scraping, content creation, AI technology, search engines, and accountability. It asserts that LLMs and search engines have different impacts when it comes to web data scraping. While web data scraping has been practiced since the early days of the internet, LLMs, being mostly a black box, make it difficult to determine the sources used for training and building answers. This lack of transparency and accountability poses challenges.

Furthermore, the analysis argues for explicit consent from content creators for the use of their content in LLM training. The current robots exclusion protocol is considered insufficient in ensuring content creators’ explicit consent. This stance aligns with SDG 9 – Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure, suggesting the need to establish a mechanism for obtaining explicit consent to maintain content creators’ control over their materials.

In addition, the analysis proposes that the content used for LLM training should evolve based on regulations and individual rights. This aligns with the principles of SDG 16 – Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions. It highlights the need for a dynamic approach to permissible content, guided by evolving regulations and the protection of individual rights.

The integration of chatbots into search engines is seen as a UI challenge. Users perceive search engines as reliable sources of information with verifiable provenance. However, the incorporation of chatbots, which may not always provide trustworthy information, raises concerns about the reliability and trustworthiness of the information presented. Striking a balance between reliable search results and chatbot integration is a challenging task.

Making AI-generated content detectable presents significant challenges. The process of watermarking text in a meaningful and resistant manner poses difficulties. Detecting and verifying AI-generated content is complex and has implications for authenticity and trust.

The main issues revolve around accountability and transparency regarding the source of content. The prevalence of fake information and spam existed before LLMs and AI, but these technologies amplify the problem. Addressing accountability and transparency is crucial in combatting the spread of misinformation and promoting reliable information dissemination.

The analysis emphasizes the benefits and drawbacks of open sourcing LLM models. Open sourcing improves transparency, accountability, and research through wider access to models, but the valuable training data that contributes to their effectiveness is not open sourced. Careful consideration is required to balance the advantages and drawbacks of open sourcing LLMs.

Lastly, more transparency is needed in the selection and curation of training data for LLMs. The value of training data is underscored, and discussions on transparency in data sources and curation processes are necessary to ensure the integrity and reliability of LLMs.

In conclusion, the analysis thoroughly examines various dimensions surrounding LLMs and their implications. It explores web data scraping, content creation, AI-generated content, chatbot integration, and accountability/transparency. The arguments presented call for thoughtful measures to ensure ethical and responsible use of LLMs in a constantly evolving digital landscape.

Rafael Evangelista

The analysis provides a comprehensive examination of the current landscape of online content creation and compensation structures. One of the primary concerns highlighted is the financial model that rewards content creators based on the number of views or clicks their content generates. This system often leads to the production of sensationalist and misleading content. The detrimental effects of this model were evident during the 2018 elections in Brazil, where far-right factions used instant messaging platforms to spread and amplify misleading content for profit. This example exemplifies the potential harm caused by the production of low-quality content driven by the pursuit of financial gain.

Another significant aspect discussed is the need to reconsider compensation structures for content creation. The analysis points out that many online platforms profit from journalistic content without adequately compensating the individuals who produce it. This raises concerns about the sustainability and quality of journalism, as content creators may struggle to earn a fair income for their work. The discussion calls for a reevaluation of the compensation models to ensure that content creators, particularly journalists, are appropriately remunerated for their contributions.

On a more positive note, there is an emphasis on acknowledging the collective essence of knowledge production and investing in public digital infrastructures. The analysis argues that resources should be directed towards the development of these infrastructures to support the creation and dissemination of knowledge. The knowledge that underpins large language models (LLMs/IOMs) is portrayed as a collective commons, and it is suggested that efforts should be made to recognize and support this collective nature.

However, there is also criticism towards the improvement of existing copyright frameworks. The distinction between fact, opinion, and entertainment is increasingly blurred, making it challenging to establish universally accepted compensation standards. Instead of bolstering copyright frameworks, the analysis recommends encouraging the creation of high-quality content that benefits the collective.

The analysis also highlights the potential negative impact of automated online media (AOMs), even in free and democratic societies. AOMs can incentivize the production of low-quality content, thereby hindering the quality and accuracy of information available online. To address this issue, the suggestion is made to tax AOM-related companies and utilize the funds to create public incentives for producing high-quality content.

In terms of governance, the analysis suggests that states should invest in developing publicly accessible AI technology. This investment would enable states to train models and maintain servers, therefore ensuring wider access to AI technology and its benefits. Additionally, there is an argument for prioritising state governance over web content functionality, as the web is regarded as something that states should take responsibility for.

The role of economic incentives in shaping the internet and web technology is highlighted, emphasising the influence of capitalist society and the need to please shareholders on internet companies. The analysis suggests viewing the internet and web through the lens of economic incentives to better understand their development and operation.

Finally, the importance of institutions in guiding content production is emphasised. The analysis posits that there is a need to regain belief in institutions that can hold social discussions and establish guidelines for content creation. The Internet Governance Forum (IGF) is specifically mentioned as a platform that can contribute to building new institutions or re-institutionalising the creation of culture and knowledge.

In conclusion, the analysis provides a thorough examination of the current state of online content creation and compensation structures. It highlights concerns regarding the financial model that incentivises low-quality content, calls for reevaluation of compensation structures, advocates for recognising the collective essence of knowledge production, criticises existing copyright frameworks, explores the potential negatives of AOMs, proposes taxation of AOM-related companies for public incentives, stresses the need for state investment in AI technology and governance over web content functionality, emphasises the role of economic incentives in shaping the internet, and highlights the importance of institutions in content creation. These insights provide valuable perspectives on the challenges and opportunities present in the online content landscape.

Vagner Santana

The analysis explored the concept of responsible technology and the potential challenges associated with it. It delved into various aspects of technology and its impact, shedding light on key points.

One major concern raised was the development of Web 3 and its potential to exacerbate issues related to data bias in technology. The analysis highlighted that machine learning models (LLMs) trained on biased data can perpetuate these biases, posing challenges for responsible AI use. Additionally, the lack of transparency in black box models, which conceal the data they contain, was identified as a concern.

The importance of language and context in technology creation was also emphasized. The analysis pointed out that discussions often focus on the context of creation rather than the diverse usage of AI and LLMs, particularly in relation to their potential to replace human professions. It highlighted how language and context significantly influence the worldwide usage and benefits of technology, with local conditions and currency playing a crucial role in determining access and usage of technological platforms.

The analysis advocated for moral responsibility and accountability in AI creation. It expressed concern that LLMs, with their ability to generate vast amounts of content, might be used irresponsibly in the absence of moral responsibility. It argued that technological creators should have a vested interest in their creations to promote accountability for AI-generated content.

There was an emphasis on the need to study technology usage to understand its real impact. The analysis acknowledged that people often repurpose technologies and use them in unexpected ways. It noted that the prevalent culture of “building fast and breaking things” in the technology industry leads to an imbalanced perspective. Thus, comprehensive studies are necessary to assess and comprehend the true consequences of technology.

The analysis highlighted the delicate balance between freedom to innovate and responsible innovation principles. While innovation requires the freedom to experiment, adhering to responsible innovation principles is essential to mitigate potential harm. It pointed out that regulations often emerge as a response to changes and issues stemming from technology.

The analysis acknowledged the non-neutrality of technology, recognizing that different perspectives arise from the lens through which we perceive and discuss it. It emphasized that individuals bring diverse values to the creation and use of technology, underscoring the subjective nature of its impact.

Furthermore, transparency issues were identified regarding web content and LLMs. The analysis noted that creative commons offer control mechanisms for web content, but there is a lack of transparency in large language models. This raised concerns about control mechanisms and participation in aligning these models, suggesting a need for greater transparency in this area.

In conclusion, the analysis emphasized the significance of developing and using technology responsibly to prevent harm and optimize benefits. It examined concerns such as data bias, language bias, transparency issues, and the importance of moral responsibility. The analysis also recognized the varied values individuals bring to technology and the importance of studying its usage. Overall, responsible technology development and usage were advocated as crucial for societal progress.

Yuki Arase

In the discussion, several concerns were raised regarding web data, large language models, chat-based search engines, and information trustworthiness. One major point made was that web data does not accurately represent real people due to the highly skewed nature of content creators. SNS texts from specific groups, such as young people, were found to dominate a significant portion of web data. This unbalanced distribution of content creators leads to biased representations and an overemphasis on particular perspectives. Furthermore, it was noted that biases and hate speech may be more prevalent in web data than in the real world, underscoring the issue of inaccurate representation.

Another concern addressed was the inherent biases and limitations of large language models trained on skewed web data. These models, which are increasingly used in various applications, rely on the information provided during training. As a result, the biases present in the training data are perpetuated by the models, resulting in potentially biased outputs. It was argued that balancing web data to accurately represent people from all around the world is practically impossible, further amplifying biases in language models.

The discussion also touched upon the impact of chat-based search engines on information trustworthiness. It was suggested that these search engines may accelerate the tendency to accept responses as accurate without verifying information from different sources. This raises concerns about the dissemination of inaccurate or unreliable information, as people may place unwarranted trust in the responses generated by these systems.

However, a positive point was made regarding the use of provenance information to enhance information trustworthiness. Provenance information refers to documenting the origin and history of generated text. By linking the generated text to data sources, individuals can verify the reliability of information provided by chatbots or similar systems. This approach can help increase trust in the information and mitigate the tendency to accept responses without verification.

The discussion also highlighted the impact of current large language models primarily catering to major languages, which could exacerbate the digital divide across the world. It was pointed out that training language models requires a substantial amount of text, which is predominantly available in major languages. Consequently, languages with smaller user bases may not have the same level of representation in language models, further marginalising those communities.

Lastly, the discussion mentioned the potential of technical solutions like watermarking to track the source of generated texts, a step towards ensuring accountability for AI-generated content. However, it was noted that the effectiveness of these technical solutions also depends on appropriate policies and governance frameworks that align with their implementation. Without these measures, the full potential of such solutions may not be realised.

In conclusion, the speakers highlighted several concerns related to web data, large language models, chat-based search engines, and information trustworthiness. The skewed nature of web data and biases in language models present challenges in accurately representing real people and avoiding biased outputs. The tendency to accept responses from chat-based search engines as accurate without verification raises concerns about the dissemination of inaccurate information. However, the use of provenance information and technical solutions like watermarking offer potential strategies to enhance information trustworthiness and ensure accountability. Additionally, the digital divide may worsen as current language models primarily cater to major languages, further marginalising communities using less represented languages. Overall, a comprehensive approach involving both technical solutions and policy frameworks is necessary to address these concerns and ensure a more accurate and trustworthy digital landscape.

Ryan Budish

Generative AI technology has the potential to bring about significant positive impacts in various sectors, including businesses, healthcare, public services, and the advancement of the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). One notable application of generative AI is its ability to provide high-quality translations for nearly 200 languages, making digital content accessible to billions of people globally. Moreover, generative AI has been used in innovative applications like generative protein design and improving online content moderation. These examples demonstrate the versatility and potential of generative AI in solving complex problems and contributing to scientific breakthroughs.

In terms of regulation, Meta supports a principled, risk-based, technology-neutral approach. Instead of focusing on specific technologies, regulations should prioritize outcomes. This ensures a future-proof regulatory framework that balances innovation and risk mitigation. By adopting an outcome-oriented approach, regulations can adapt to the evolving landscape of AI technologies while safeguarding against potential harms.

Building generative AI tools in a safe and responsible manner is crucial. Rigorous internal privacy reviews are conducted to address privacy concerns and protect personal data. Generative AI models are also trained to minimize the possibility of private information appearing in responses to others. This responsible development approach helps mitigate potential negative consequences.

An open innovation approach can further enhance the safety and effectiveness of AI technologies. Open sourcing AI models allows for the identification and mitigation of potential risks more effectively. It also encourages collaboration between researchers, developers, and businesses, leading to improved model quality and innovative applications. Open source AI models benefit research and development efforts for companies and the wider global community.

Ryan Budish, an advocate for open source and open innovation, believes in the benefits of open sourcing large language models. He argues that public access to these models encourages research, innovation, and prevents a concentration of power within the tech industry. By making models publicly accessible, flaws and issues can be identified and fixed by a diverse range of researchers, improving overall model quality. This collaborative approach fosters an environment of innovation, inclusivity, and prevents monopolies by a few tech companies.

In conclusion, generative AI technology has the potential for positive impacts in multiple industries. It enhances communication, contributes to scientific advancements, and improves online safety. A principled, risk-based, technology-neutral approach to regulation is vital for balancing innovation and risk mitigation. Responsible development and use of generative AI tools, along with open innovation practices, further enhance the safety, quality, and inclusivity of AI technologies.

Diogo Cortiz da Silva:
Good afternoon, good evening for everybody. Thank you to join us in this session about large language models and the impact on the web. And we plan to anticipate some questions. We are now in the last day of IGF, and we had a lot of sessions regarding generative AI. And this session is a little bit different because we will try to focus on some technical aspects and how generative AI, in general sense, could impact the web ecosystem. So when we planned this activity, we designed a structure in three main topics. One about data mining from web content. And we have a policy question for this. I read this. And so we have three main dimensions and three key policy questions that will guide our discussion here. But of course, we can go further on some aspects. And the first dimension is the web as data source for LLMs. And we have the policy questions. What are the limits of scrapping web data to train LLMs? And what measures should be implemented within a governance framework to ensure privacy, prevent copyright infringement, and effectively manage content creator consent? And we prepared these policy questions, I think, that four months ago. And since then, we see some work on this. For example, OpenAI and also Google, they create a way to block data mining. So it’s an approach to give user more control of their content. We have a second dimension that’s what happens if we incorporate generative AI, chatbots, on search engines. And for this dimension, we have the following policy questions. What are the potential risks and governance complexes associated with incorporated large language models into search engines as chatbot interfaces? And how should different regions? And for example, GlobalSoft respond to the impact on web traffic and consequently in digital economy. So if you have search engines replying directly to the query and not giving access or links to the original content. But we have a lot of other technical and ethical questions about this that can go further. And the third dimension is the web as the platform to post content generated by AI. And for this, we have the following policy questions. What are the technical and governance approach to detect AI-generated content posted on the web, restrain the dissemination of sensitive content, and provide means of accountability? And for this workshop, we have an excellent team of speakers from different backgrounds, from different stakeholder groups, and from different regions. We will have Professor Emily Bender from University of Washington that will join us online. We will have Wagner Santana from IBM Research. We will have Yuki Arasai from Osaka Universe that’s here in person. We will have Rian Budish from Meta that will join us online. We will have Dominic Rassel from W3C, the World Wide Web Consortium, that will join us online. And we’ll have Rafael Evangelista from the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee and Professor of University of Campinas that is also here. So I will start. Actually, every speaker will have 10 minutes for initial considerations. And we will start with Professor Emily Bender. Professor Emily Bender, thank you for joining us and accept our invitation. The floor is yours.

Emily Bender:
Thank you so much. Ohayou gozaimasu. I’m joining you from Seattle, where it is the evening. And I have prepared just a few remarks. And I’m hoping I can share my screen for some visual aids partway through. But I’ll try that when I get there. To the first question about the limits of scraping web data to train LLMs, I think it is really unfortunate that we have come around as a global society to a situation where the default seems to be if somebody can grab the data, it’s theirs. That doesn’t have to be the policy standpoint. But we have to take action if we want to change it. And what I would like to see it change to is what Sacha Costanza-Chock calls consentful technology, where the data is collected in a meaningful opt-in way, only with consent of the people contributing the data. And the benefit that will come with that is that such data collection has to be intentional. Right now, the data underlying LLMs is largely collected very haphazardly. The push has been to get the largest possible data set because that leads to more fluent output. That leads to output that can seem to speak to more topics. And so it’s just been, let’s grab everything we can. That hasn’t left room for documenting it so that we know what’s there. And it also hasn’t left resources or room for really building something that is representative of the world we would like to build. It’s also, incidentally, not representative of the world as it is because the internet, as we’ll see with my examples in a moment, doesn’t reflect a neutral viewpoint on the world. Moving on to the second question, what are the potential risks and governance complexities associated with incorporating LLMs into search engines? These are enormous. And it’s really important to understand that a large language model is not an information source. The information that is stored in a large language model is literally just information about the distribution of word forms in text. It’s not information about the world. It’s not information about people’s opinions about the world. It does include reflections of opinions in the form of biases that are expressed via the distribution of word forms in text. Thinking about the implications for the Global South in particular, and starting first with that idea of bias, here’s where I want to try to share my screen. Let’s see if this works. I teach with Zoom all the time, so it should work. Just going to be brave and share the desktop. All right. Do you see a tweet? Hopefully. This is an author advertising a preprint paper. And what they did in this paper was they looked at the ways in which mentions of people and places basically cluster together in very large-scale collections of text. They’re looking at Lama Tzu. And this was presented as though it were a world model, rather than just correlations that entities in the US tend to be mentioned in the same kinds of textual circumstances. What is particularly striking, actually, about this graphic is just how sparse the data is in the Global South. And so we are getting lack of representation and then misrepresentation because we are relying on these data sets that heavily weight the gaze of the Global North. And that’s a big problem. The other thing that I wanted to show you has to do with pollution of the information ecosystem. So as we let these synthetic media machines just spill their synthetic text into the web, it doesn’t stay contained as the output of ChatGPT, but it moves from location to location. I tested this today. It is unfortunately still true. If you put in the Google search query, no country in Africa starts with K, which isn’t even a question, but it’s a search query, out comes this false snippet. While there are 54 recognized countries in Africa, none of them begin with the letter K. And then it nonsensically continues, the closest is Kenya, which starts with a K. And where did this come from? So this is Google search. I’m not even using BARD here, but this is Google search taking a snippet from the first hit for this query, which is this page called Emergent Mind, where some developer has chosen to post the output of ChatGPT. I don’t know who this person is. I don’t know why they chose to post this thing. But somebody decided to give ChatGPT the input, did you know that there is no country in Africa that starts with the letter K? ChatGPT is designed to provide outputs that human raters say this is good. In other words, it’s designed to output a sequence of text that reads as what you want to hear. And so ChatGPT replies, yes, that’s correct, and then continues with that same string that we saw Google pulling up as its snippet for the search result. So there’s two big problems here. One is we have the output of the synthetic media machine that looks like very fluent English, and so it sort of slides in with other kinds of information. And the other is that our information ecosystem, just like a natural ecosystem, really is this interdependent collection of sites. And the synthetic text doesn’t stay quarantined to where it was output. I’ll stop the share there so that I can see my notes when you can’t. I want to move on to point C here. The question is, what are the technical and governance approaches to detect AI-generated content posted on the web, restrain the dissemination of sensitive content, and provide means of accountability? So technically speaking, with the synthetic text that we have now, this cannot be detected after the fact. It has to be marked at the source, and that means watermarking. That is not impossible. There’s really interesting work, for example, published at ICML this year for very clever ideas about how to put in watermarks in synthetic text that would be hard to detect and remove. But honestly, even something that is relatively easy to remove would be an improvement. Because if we have watermarks, then the default use case would contain the watermarks, and we could filter the synthetic text. And just like oil spills in the natural ecosystem, synthetic media spills in the information ecosystem are a situation where less pollution is better. Even if we can’t get rid of all of it, it’s worth designing policies to minimize it. So I really think we need policy action here, and we can’t just pin our hopes on some technological solution that would allow us to detect this stuff after the fact. So I think that is everything I plan to say. I want to make sure there’s time for everyone to speak. I look forward to learning from you all. Thank you.

Diogo Cortiz da Silva:
Thank you, Professor Emily Bender, for your considerations. And now I invite Wagner Santana from IBM Research. Wagner, the floor is yours.

Vagner Santana :
Thank you. I’ll try to share my screen just a second. I’ll need to quit and try again. Sorry. So we’re waiting for Wagner to join us online. So we move to Professor Yuki.

Yuki Arase:
So thank you for inviting me to this exciting panel. So my points are quite largely overlapped with what Emily just said. But for the first point, first question, the limitations of scraping the web data to train large language models is that we should be aware that web data never represents people in the real world. It is highly skewed in many ways due to unbalanced distributions of content creators. For example, now, SNS texts occupy a large portion of web data, which come from mostly a specific group, particularly young groups of people using SNS. And also, like, social biases or even hate speeches can be more significant in the web data than what we really see in the real world. And there are a large amount of automatically-generated content, including noisy or even toxic ones in the web data. So web data can never be balanced to equally represent people in the world. And large language models trained on such data inevitably inherit the same feature or same trend or same characteristics of such web data. So it won’t be perfect, like the correct or trustworthy model as it is. So we should be aware of that. And for the second point, what are the potential risks and governance complications associated with incorporating large language models into search engines? So I think one of the serious concerns is that chat-based search can be too handy for people to use, which may accelerate the tendency to accept a response as correct or trustworthy without looking up different sources of information. So as I just said, the web data does not represent real people. And the web data, sometimes, there is a lot of wrong information. So large language models trained on such data has the same trend. So there’s no doubt. So the search is now our lifeline. And its advancement is really appreciated. But we must ensure the way to access various sources of information so that we can check the information is trustworthy or it’s something we should believe. So for this, I think it’s a good way to address this problem is to have a way to link the generative text to some kind of data sources, which allows us to understand what information these texts are based on. So as our group, we have been working on this kind of problem. So natural language processing can somehow help to identify alignments between generated and text in the real world. Such kind of provenance information gives us a chance to step back and think, wait, is this chatbot response really trustworthy or not? So another concern is that the current large language models cover mostly major languages because they are data-hungry and require a large amount of text for training. So text data of such scale is available only for major languages. And besides the evaluation and benchmark data sets that we are heavily rely on to developing such large language models, also concentrate on major languages. So yeah, so this trend may hinder the expansion of the technology to regional or local languages. which may worsen the digital divide across the world. So we should explore the way to train large language models in a data-efficient way and cover various languages and cultures and so on. So for the third question, what are the technical and governance approaches to detect AI-generated content? I think, yeah, I was about to refer to the same paper just Emily mentioned, like watermarking for the generated text. This is a technical way so that we can track down who generated, for which model generated such text. But as Emily said, this is just a technical solution and we need a policy or governance to really work with such kind of technology, really work in the world. So that’s all from my side, thank you. Thank you.

Diogo Cortiz da Silva:
Thank you, Professor Yuki. And now I invite Ryan Budish from Meta. Thank you, Ryan, to join us. Thank you very much. Before I start, did you want to go back? I see Wagner is back on. I know we skipped him, so I just wanted to make sure that. Ah, okay, Wagner is back, right? No, so, yeah. I’m here. So can you try to, you are going to share your screen, Wagner? Yes.

Vagner Santana :
Okay, so let’s try. Can you see my screen? Okay. So now it’s okay, so. Thanks, I’m sorry for the previous situation. Well, I prepared a few slides just to try to delve into the questions presented by Diogo, but under the lens of this idea of thinking about the context of creations of technology and the context of use of technology. Well, as Diogo mentioned, we’re thinking about scraping web data, privacy, copyright, and also the use of LLMs to search engines, different regions, and how the digital economy may be impacted, and also the whole idea of detecting AI-generated content, dissemination accountability. For the first point, I like to think about how we came here, right? So first we had the web one, then web two, the social web, and then now with blockchain, with the promise of providing more trust. But if we pause here and think about LLMs, now we’re having this data used to train models, and then we have this black box without transparency about the data that is inside, and how is it going to be this web three plus with data? And the concerning thing about is how is it going to be when it started to be retrained on the data that it’s using, right? What are the biases? And this has already been mentioned by other panelists that we have bias, we know that, and how is this going to be amplified by this, the way we have? And we have approaches like the robots TXT file to block, but that shouldn’t be the default, right? Capture anything that you have to block for someone to not use your contents, right? So, and we also can start thinking about machine learning attacks. People can start creating pages just to poison LLMs that are going to be trained on those datasets. So these are some of the aspects that I wanted to bring first. And moving to the second question, well, I often see this discussion about humans and humans substituted, replaced by humans plus AI, humans plus LLMs, right? And again, back in web two, we had just content creators creating content, e-commerce platforms, and then the consumption by people, social, and then conversions, and then this coming back to the platform and part to the creators, right? And nowadays with adding LLMs to this equation, we have this idea of having LLMs with the content creators creating maybe more content. And then there’s this whole promise of increasing productivity. Again, we have platforms, but now the consumption is not only by people. We have also robots consuming that to their own interests, right? Conversion, and then this will come back in some form and distributed. But back to this idea of replacement, I’d like to bring a discussion around. Usually we have this examples of certain categories and the one that I like to explore is about attorneys, for instance. So there’s this whole discussion that attorneys are going to be replaced by attorneys that use LLMs. But if you think about the language that these LLMs are being trained and the laws, and usually, so those platforms are paying US dollars, right? I’m located in New York, TJ Watson Lab, but I’m originally from Brazil and the currency impacts a lot on how you use those platforms, right? So this is one aspect I wanted to bring. And the thing is these discussions usually about replacement are closest to the context of creation of technology, right? People that speak the same or the most used language on those data sets used for training, right? And moving towards the third question, and we already saw some of these aspects. I think that one aspect that I wanted to emphasize here is the idea of the accountability and generated content and the understanding of how technology works, right? It predicts the next word. And if we get this into scale, we have really large content being created, right? And I like to see that and discuss about that being as a one way. And if we try to get, for instance, a reverse prompt in which we give a content and ask for a prompt, you will not get this. It is not trained for that. And it has no means of getting the input back. And there’s this whole idea of understanding the limitations and in Responsible AI, there’s this question around moral entanglement in which we should have technology creators of being morally entangled with the data and the technology they create, right? And I would also expand that to the content because nowadays we’re seeing people using some LLMs in a not better way, not right way. I brought some examples that I saw in a prompt engineering course of ways that people present on how to use large language models and here some quotes on creating blogs and answering social media about things that people don’t know, right? So I think that we should have also this idea of moral entanglement for content that also people create. And the thing is that we have this huge technology that is consistent and predictable and it’s hard to cover all possible outcomes of context. So this idea of techno-solutionism and techno-centrism brought us here, right? I brought really just an outline of the Responsible Inclusive Framework that we proposed in our team. The R&I Framework, it brings some discussions around context of creation versus context of use and this distance, how this distance can be concerning and a notion of stakeholders that goes to self-business up to society. And here, the idea of presenting this picture is that… Okay, no. And well, in context of use, we have creation of technology, prototyping, development, training and deployment. What we have in context of use, sorry, we have users, tasks, equipment and social and physical environments and all the possible variations of those, right? So we have really complex situations. So it’s nearly impossible to predict all possible contexts before and after, even after deployment. Let’s think here, some examples, people riding bikes while using mobile phones, right? And for developers, it’s hard for us to think about tasks and ways of people using mobile phones while riding bikes. And imagine this last one with six mobile phones and riding a bike. And here we can see that it’s the same app, Pokemon Go, but imagine that we are in a context that people are using six different LLMs interacting while riding bikes. It’s impossible to predict all of these possibilities. So why does distance matter? Because we have, the higher the distance, the more impersonal technology is. And that’s what we see nowadays. Technologies created in one region, used in all around the globe, a lived experience for people creating technologies are different from the ones impacted by these technologies, right? And this culture of build fast, break and fix, which is often popular, it influences in this impersonality for technology. And there’s also imbalance in terms of perspectives, considers. And unfortunately, the ones with power to compete, understand and promote changes are very few. So to conclude, without studying how technology is used, we are hindered for the real impacts. And our premises when creating technology are limited in terms of coverage of possible contexts. And we need more ways of covering all these possibilities, diverse teams and all the things that we already know. But there’s one interesting aspect is that people repurpose those technologies. We have been repurposing technology since web one, right? And some people use that in a really good way. So we need to empower those users, but also to prevent harmful aspects. And there’s this whole idea that innovation may need freedom to experiment, right? But also responsible innovation teaches us that we need avoid harms, do good, and implement governance to make sure that these two things are happening at the same time, right? And we see that usually we have regulations reporting to changes. And I think that this is one interesting way of starting and starting a change and responding to the things that we are seeing out there. Thank you.

Diogo Cortiz da Silva:
Thank you, Wagner, to bring your considerations from the industry perspective. And now I invite Ryan from ETA to also share inputs from the industry. Thank you, Ryan. The floor is yours. Great, thank you so much. I’m thrilled to be here.

Ryan Budish :
I’m coming from Boston, Massachusetts, where it is quite late at night. So I’m going to try not to speak too loudly because my kids are sleeping in the room next to me, but let me know if you can’t hear me. So I wanna start by taking a step back. And I think that it’s still, even though it doesn’t feel like it some days, it’s still very much early days for generative AI technologies. And I think what these technologies might look like as they unfold is still a bit fuzzy, but it isn’t hard to imagine some of the huge positive impacts that they could have for businesses, large and small, for healthcare, for the delivery of public services, for advancing the UN Sustainable Development Goals and much more. And I think a lot of people, maybe they think about AI chat bots or some of the really fun generative AI tools, like some of those that Meta announced just a few weeks ago. But before getting into these questions, I just wanted to mention a couple of uses of large language models that we’ve developed that I think highlight some of the tremendous opportunity here. One area is translation, and we’ve published groundbreaking research and shared models for translation, such as our No Language Left Behind model and our Universal Speech Translator models. No Language Left Behind, NLLB, is a first of its kind AI research project that open sources models capable of delivering high quality translations directly between nearly 200 languages. Because high quality language translation tools don’t exist for hundreds of languages, billions of people can’t access digital content or participate fully in online communications and communities on the web in their preferred or native languages. And tools like NLLB can help address some of that. And when comparing the quality of translations to previous AI research, the NLLB 200 models scored an average of 44% higher, and it was even significantly more higher than that for some African and Indian-based languages. And we’re also developing this Universal Speech Translator, where the innovation there is that it can translate from speech in one language to another in real time, which is something that can work even where there is no standard writing system. And that’s really important because when you think about how a lot of language translation models work, particularly speech-based ones, they start with speech, translate it to text, translate the text from one language to another, and then translate that back in, transform that back into speech. And that breaks down if you don’t have a standard writing system in the middle there. And so something like Universal Speech Translator can help address that. And eliminating language barriers could be a profound benefit, making it possible for billions of people to access information online, across the web in their native or preferred languages. And we’ve also made other large language models available to researchers and have seen really tremendous research and innovation there, including like our OPT175B model, which has been used for all kinds of interesting applications, like generative protein design to improving content moderation tools online. And so I think that there is really a potential for immense benefits of these large language models on the web. But at the same time, there’s also undoubtedly risks and problems. And like any technology, an LLM itself is not inherently good or bad, but the critical question is what is it used for? And I think AI technologies and LLMs can drive progress on some of the most pressing challenges that we’re facing today. So when we think about governance, we have to strike a balance between mitigating these potential risks, particularly from high risk applications, while ensuring that we can continue to benefit from innovation and economic growth. And as we’ve heard already a couple of times today, in order to build these large language models and to have these benefits that they’re able to potentially bring, the volume of material required to train them is almost incomprehensible in scale. We’re talking hundreds of millions and sometimes billions of pieces of information is required to train a large language model. And in order to build these groundbreaking tools and have the training data necessary, many companies have to use data from a wide variety of sources, including data publicly available from across the internet. And the sheer scale of these systems is partly why these issues that Diego has teed up, rightly so, is why they’re so important and so complex. So on the first question, the piece that I wanted to dive into, to at least to start with, is about… is about privacy. And I want to talk about some of the ways that we’re trying to develop these technologies in a safe and responsible way with respect to privacy. I think we know we have a responsibility to protect people’s privacy. And we have teams dedicated to this work for everything we build, including our generative AI tools. A few weeks ago, for instance, we announced a bunch of exciting new generative AI products. And privacy was really important for how we develop those features with a variety of important privacy safeguards to protect people’s information and to help them understand how these features work. Our generative AI features go through rigorous internal privacy review process, for example, which helps us ensure that we’re using people’s data responsibly while building better experiences for connection and to help people express themselves online. For publicly available information, for example, we filtered the data set to exclude certain websites that commonly share personal information. And importantly, we didn’t train these models on people’s private posts. And for publicly shared posts on things like Instagram and Facebook, they were a part of the data used to train generative AI tools. And we train our generative AI models to limit the possibility of private information that one person may share while using a generative AI feature from appearing in responses to other people. Now, on the second question, this is something that we think a lot about how we can build these tools so that they can benefit everyone, including people in the global South. And one important way that we’re trying to do this is by making AI technologies more accessible to more people. We’ve been very public about our views on open source, most recently releasing Llama 2 and Code Llama models. And we do this because we believe that the benefits of AI should be for the whole of society, not just for a handful of companies. And we believe that this approach can actually make AI better for everyone. With thousands of open source contributors working to make an AI system better, we can more quickly find and mitigate potential risks in systems and improve the tuning to prevent erroneous outputs. And the more AI-related risks are identified by a broad range of stakeholders, including researchers, academics, policymakers, developers, and other companies, then the more solutions that the AI community, including tech companies, will be able to find for implementing guardrails to make these technologies safer. And an open innovation approach also has economic and competition benefits. I mean, LLMs are extremely expensive to develop and train. And that’s why, increasingly, AI development and major discoveries happen in private companies. But with open source AI, anyone can benefit from the research and development, both within companies, but also across the entire arena, across the entire global community of developers and researchers. And this is something we’ve experienced firsthand in other contexts. Our engineers, for example, developed an open source frameworks that are now industry standards, like React, which is a leading framework for making web and mobile applications, as well as PyTorch, which is now the leading framework for AI. And so now, on to the third question. Meta has learned from a range of experiences, both positive and negative, over the last decade. And we’re using these lessons to build safeguards to our AI products from the beginning, so that people can have safer and ultimately more enjoyable experiences. I think it’s important, when we talk about watermarking, particularly for something like text, that our view is that generative AI doesn’t help bad actors spread content once it’s created. Bad actors can really only spread problematic content, whether AI-generated or not, through known tactics, like fake accounts or scripted behavior. And this means that we can actually continue to detect malicious attempts to spread or amplify AI-generated content, using many of the same behavioral signals that we already rely on. And we know that generative AI can help bad actors create problematic content. So we have teams that are constantly working to get better at identifying and stopping the spread of harmful content. And we’re actually optimistic about using generative AI tools themselves to help us enforce our policies. And this issue is not unique to META. It’s a concern across industry. And that’s why META and many of our industry peers voluntarily joined the White House commitments that include a commitment about watermarking AI content that would otherwise be indistinguishable from reality. But make no mistake, this is a deep and significant technical challenge. And currently, there really aren’t any common standards for identifying and labeling AI-generated content across industry. And we think there should be. And so we’re working with other companies through forums like the Partnership on AI in the hope of developing them. And so what should governance of this technology look like? And I think that we support principled, risk-based, technology-neutral approaches to regulation of AI. We think that measures should not be focused on specific technologies, such as generative AI. Instead, our view is that regulation should be focused on the what, the outcomes that regulation wants to achieve or prevent, rather than the how. We believe that this approach is more future-proof and helps strike a better balance between enabling innovation while continuing to help us minimize the risks. So with that, I’ll stop there. So thank you.

Diogo Cortiz da Silva:
Thank you, Ryan. Now we move to technical community. And I invite Dominique from W3C, the World Wide Web Consortium, to join us. Hi, everyone. Thank you, Diogo, for the invitation.

Dominique Hazaël Massieux:
Just a quick few words about what W3C is and maybe why I’m here. So W3C is a worldwide web consortium and why I’m here. So W3C is one of the leading standard organizations for web technologies. And in particular, in W3C, I’ve been in charge of developing our work on bringing machine learning technologies to web browsers, which has led me to look at the broader impact of AI on web content. So to the three questions that were raised for this panel, the first one around the limits of scraping web data. So I think it’s interesting when you look at that question and you look at what exists today, scraping web data is something that probably started from the very early days of the web that has been a critical component of one of the tools we all rely on, which, of course, are search engines. And so one of the questions I wanted to raise is how do LLMs and search engines differ in terms of scraping web data and why should they be handled differently? And I think one of the clear answers to that has already been alluded to. Search engines today fulfill a role of intermediation between content creators and content consumers, where content creators can expect something back in the form of a link back to the original content. If you look at an LLM, in most cases, and maybe this will change, as others have said, this is a very fast evolving space. But today, an LLM is mostly a black box. You get an answer, but you don’t know the sources from the training of that LLM, and you don’t know exactly which sources were used to build such an answer. And some of it is structural to the technology itself. It’s not just a limitation. Part of what an LLM does is compress all this information they gathered across a whole corpus of data they collected. So given the fact that copyright itself was, at least from my understanding, always building as a trade-off between incentivizing content creation and making sure the content would get widely published and distributed, I think the fact that LLMs today have, to say the least, an unclear story about how they consider the copyright of the content they integrate in their training, I think to me there is here a really fundamental question. Understanding, indeed, whether it’s permissible for LLM to use any kind of available text and data for that training, or whether, as Professor Bender said, this needed a lot more explicit consent from the content creators. And my perspective is that, indeed, the current robots exclusion protocol, which is really about excluding crawlers, not saying anything about what the crawling data should be reused for, is not a sufficient mechanism to ensure the explicit consent of content creators. We need something a lot more robust and a lot more opt-in rather than opt-out from my perspective. I think the question about privacy is also interesting. Again, if you think about the search engine comparison, something that has emerged over the past few years is the so-called right to be forgotten, where, at least in some regions, search engines have been mandated to remove content that is private of nature. And of course, there is also some controversy about the feasibility of this request and the overall impact on the information space. But if you think about that particular question and LLMs, again, is it even feasible today to untrain such a specific part of an LLM that could have been learned over data that would have otherwise been removed from the public information space? I mean, to me, that illustrates some of the really tricky questions. No matter how careful the training might have been, the data might have been created, it assumes that this is a static set of permissible data when, in fact, what is permissible has to evolve over time based on evolution of regulations, based on evolution of individual rights, and so on. So I guess, to me, the answers to what are the limits, they are, to me, pretty large. I think there needs to be a significant rethink of how training should be done. And of course, there is a lot of value in having a lot of text to create some of the really impressive output that LLMs have been able to bring. But that cannot be at the expense of making sure that, in particular, content creators get the incentive to continue to create and publish that content. Because otherwise, at the end of the day, of course, there won’t be anything left for LLM to build on if content creators stop publishing their data, no matter what. In terms of the questions around the complexities of incorporating chatbots into search engines, some of the main points, I think, have already been made. I mean, to me, one of the critical points, again, was made by Professor Bender, mixing something that users have approached as a source of reliable information with checkable provenance with something that is not meant as a tool of necessarily trustable information or checkable information is a really challenging UI question. Typically, probably not a good idea, although there could be protections around it. Sorry, it’s 3am here, so the brain is still a bit waking up. And the fact that these interfaces are really sleek, in a way, makes the problem even more damning. But in terms of the complexity of the governance question, I think we are dealing with the questions we’ve seen emerge again and again. What are the limits that can be put into things that are primarily products and user interface or even user experience considerations? I think we all agree that there has been a lot of value in allowing a lot of innovation, a lot of competition in that space. And so there are limits to what governance, external governance can impose in that space. We are seeing some evolutions in this limits with some of the regulations, for instance, emerging with the Digital Service Act in the EU. But to me, there is something here structural in terms of governance, that is, who should have a say about what gets exposed in a search engine interface. And even if some of this may or may not be a good idea, who is going to be at the table to participate to these conversations? I don’t think it’s a simple question. Again, there’s a trade-off between enabling new ideas, new interfaces, new interactions, and making sure we don’t weaken some of these tools that have become structural, systematic in their importance, I think is something that we are going to be facing for the years to come. But again, in terms of one of the impact that I think we need to keep repeating in the importance of the web ecosystem, the fact that today LLMs don’t generate backlinks, they generate digested, compressed content, is something that further goes against the grain of the role of search engines, not only social role, but also economical role of search engines, which, again, typically have operated with the notion that they serve as this intermediary between content creators and content consumers. Finally, on the third question around the approaches to making AI-generated content detectable, there is definitely a challenging technical question. How do you watermark text in a way that is meaningfully detectable and resist to changes? And the latter, I think, points maybe to the more structural issue to me in that space is that some content that gets released and published is purely AI-generated, and LLMs allow to provide scale and possibly, unfortunately, some level of trustworthiness in the sense that they provide very sleek outcome. But increasingly, my guess at least is that LLMs will be used not just as pure generators, but as authoring tools, something that help people create content, not just create content that gets released as is. And so when you get into that mode, it’s no longer a binary, yes, this was created by AI versus this was created by human. I expect a lot of content that we will see in the years to come will be hybrid content with AI having either provided a fast version, having provided corrections to existing content, or even a more iterative process between human and AI-generated content. And how do you… such a content, even without thinking of what or marking what kind of metadata could be used to reflect this I think is, to say the least, challenging. Of course, the need to mark at least purely generated AI content I think remains important and worthy of addressing itself. And I would say it’s probably even worth addressing for LLM trainers themselves. If you’re training your LLM on generated content, you’re going to create likely a lot of drift in the quality of the training over time so there is value in being able to either exclude or at least treat differently such content. But at the end of the day, I think the real question that this particular trend of AI generated content is bringing even more strongly to the surface is one of indeed accountability and transparency about the source of content. So, for example, fake information, fake news haven’t waited for LLMs to emerge, the content for spamming, the farms for spamming content haven’t waited for LLMs either. LLMs are very likely going to bring a different scale to the issue and so that doesn’t address the problem, but to me I think it’s really important we address the broad issue as the issue about how do we get as a society to managing this different level of quality of content, the notion of who is responsible for content that gets published, and that we take into account the impact that LLM brings to the scale of that issue, but I doubt that focusing specifically on LLM or AI generated content is the right framework for the discussion. I think the real critical gap I’m seeing in terms of governance here is one that I think this very panel is trying to address. I think we have a lot more structured conversations between technologists, between research, between regulatory bodies in structuring this space. So far, it’s a lot, it’s way too much siloed conversations among our own small communities, having places, having opportunities more than a panel, really day long conversations about how do we, with our various stakeholders, with our various perspectives on the problem space, come to a set of, if not solutions, at least directions, at least places for experimentation that cross these barriers across technology and regulation, I think is really the critical piece because until these silos remain, then the gaps between these conversations are the places where the things we don’t want to appear are going to thrive. Thank you.

Diogo Cortiz da Silva:
Okay. Thank you, Dominique, for your contribution. And now I move to Rafael from the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee and also professor at the University of Campinas in Sao Paulo, Brazil. Thank you, Rafael.

Rafael Evangelista:
Thank you, Diogo. Firstly, I would like to thank you for the invitation and congratulate the organizers for the quality of the questions presented in this panel. However, I must say I won’t be able to address the complexity of all the issues mentioned in the activity description. One pressing concern I would like to address is the proliferation of low-quality content on the Internet, and the root of this issue, in my opinion, is the financial model that underpins much of the web’s content creation. The digital advertising ecosystem, which rewards content creators based on the number of views or clicks, has inadvertently incentivized the production of sensationalist or even misleading content. This is particularly evident in Brazil, where such content has not only misled the public, but also has posed significant threats to the democratic process. A case in point is the 2018 elections, during which certain far-right factions adeptly utilized instant messaging groups to disseminate and amplify online content. This content was then monetized either directly through the platforms or indirectly via digital advertising. And something similar happened in the context of the 2016 US elections, where the actions of Macedonian groups seeking economic gains are well documented. From the perspective of the developing nations or the so-called global north, these practices might seem distant or even improbable. However, the reality in the global south, characterized by stark economic disparities and significant currency fluctuations, paints a different picture. There, many individuals, including young professionals, find themselves resorting to producing subpar or misleading content as a viable means of income. This trend isn’t limited to mainstream platforms. Even alternative media outlets, which traditionally championed unbiased and independent reporting, are succumbing to the allure of increased clicks and the subsequent revenue. The overall quality of content produced in Portuguese, speaking of the case of Brazil, has dropped considerably due to the perverse economic incentives for web publishing. The advent of large language models further complicates this landscape. There is a growing concern that LLMs might exacerbate and spread low-quality information. To counteract this, we must re-evaluate and overhaul the existing compensation structures governing web content production. The current business models, especially those of major big tech platforms, have inadvertently skewed the balance, often to the detriment of genuine, high-quality cultural and informational content. In my capacity as a board member of CGI.PR, we have dedicated time and effort to discuss potential legislative actions to curb that scenario. Our primary aim is to find ways to reallocate the enormous wealth accumulated by major technology corporations to fund better quality content. We believe that these resources can be instrumental in promoting and sustaining high-quality, diverse and inclusive journalism, which is crucial for a well-informed society. Our team is not just looking for short-term solutions. Instead, we are determined to craft a strategy that can overcome the prevailing marketing incentives, which, more often than not, tend to favor quantity over quality. A substantial part of our discussions focus on how journalists and content curators can be fairly compensated for their work. Many suggestions on the table are rooted in copyright claims. The core argument here is that many online platforms are reaping significant profits from journalistic content without providing just compensations to those who produce it, which is similar to what is happening with the LLMs. Interestingly, this debate parallels the discussions about the training of artificial intelligence systems, especially when it comes to the use of vast amounts of data without proper acknowledgment of or compensation. While I personally find these arguments compelling and worth considering, the field of journalism introduces its own set of complexities. One of the most pressing issues is defining the boundaries of what truly qualifies as journalistic content and what not. The blurred lines between opinion, fact, and entertainment content make it a daunting task to set universally accepted compensation standards. I believe that the solution isn’t merely to bolster existing copyright frameworks. Instead, we should focus on cultivating an environment that encourages the creation of high-quality content that benefits the collective. In the realm of journalism, this could manifest as public funds sourced from tech giants, but managed transparently and democratically, dedicated to promoting quality journalism. Implementing such mechanisms won’t be without its challenges, especially when it comes to defining quality journalism and safeguarding it from undue external influences. The challenges posed by IOMs are analogous. Take, for example, Cielo, a digital library that offers open access to scientific journals. Initially a Brazilian initiative, it now boasts participation from 16 countries, predominantly Portuguese and Spanish speakers. With over 1,200 open access journals, it’s a treasure trove of information readily available to IOMs for training purposes. This represents a significant public investment from the global south, which is now being harnessed to train technologies predominantly controlled by a select few corporations. In my view, the answer is not to restrict access to such invaluable resources, nor is it feasible to compensate every individual author of these scientific papers directly. Many of these authors are already compensated by their academic institutions to produce publicly accessible knowledge. It’s essential to recognize that while IOMs might be the brainchild of major corporations, the knowledge that fuels them is derived from a collective commons. Thus, our governance solutions should pivot away from individualistic compensation models. Instead, we should champion initiatives that acknowledge the collective essence of knowledge production and channel resources towards bolstering public digital infrastructures. In the sense, IOMs are used as public digital infrastructures. Along with these public digital infrastructures, we need to establish governance and financing mechanisms that ensure the fulfillment of public and democratic interests. It seems clear that the technological and financial difference between companies from the global north and the global south creates a situation where only states have a realistic capacity to compete. The web, with its open and collaborative nature, was an infrastructure that excited everyone at the beginning of the 21st century due to the possibilities of producing free and accessible cultural commons. However, social media platforms soon emerged with their walled gardens, blocking content interoperability and privately appropriating collective production. IOMs represent a new chapter in this challenge. They appropriate not only the expressed content, but also the ways we express ourselves, the form used to express ourselves. While IOMs undoubtedly bring benefits and have many uses, leading to their rapid adoption when used in the context of weakly regulated advertising and surveillance markets formed by distorted economic incentives, they become tools for further production of low-quality content. Thank you.

Diogo Cortiz da Silva:
Thank you, Rafael. Thank you all the speakers for initial remarks. We have different inputs from different stakeholders, and now I open the discussion. So, I invite the audience, both in person and online audience, to ask questions. And also, I invite the speakers to comment on the content discussed here. So, we have two questions, three questions here, four questions on site. So, I think that we can run the mics. Yeah, it’s better than go there, I think. No, I think that we can run this mic here.

Audience:
Yeah, my name is Julius Endert from Deutsche Welle Academy, German public broadcaster. So, I would like to connect what you said. So, we are also trying to find out how the effects of especially generative AI on the freedom of expression is. So, will it be a tool for allowing more people to express them freely, or will it maybe, on the other hand, be the opposite and that we see new limitations, especially in unfree media systems and surroundings and authoritarian regimes, or the effect also on the public discourse? That is my question. So, what is the effect on the freedom of speech and the public discourse, to make it shorter? Okay, so I think that you can reply now. Yeah.

Rafael Evangelista:
As I was trying to say, I don’t think that, of course, authoritarian countries represent a different challenge, more like a specific context. But I think that what I was trying to express is that AOMs will not only be used in this context, but even in the democratic context, in free countries, we have this bunch of incentives for the production of low-quality content. And I think the AOMs will be used for that. And the thing that I think could be useful to combat that, to try to avoid those things, is to understand that we have to tax the companies and to use that funds to create public incentives, to produce content that is of quality and regulated or governed by public institutions that can be democratic. I think that’s it.

Diogo Cortiz da Silva:
Thank you. So we move to the second question. It was over there. You can go to the mic there, I think.

Audience:
Hello, my name is Teo from the University of Brasilia. I’m starting my question with the point that the representative from META just brought up, which is the idea that you don’t regulate the form or the process, but you regulate the product, the outcome. And I’m wondering, we’re talking about this in the context of very few businesses, just as platforms and social media are controlled by the same few businesses that control the development of LLMs, and not even states can compete with the development and the pace of LLM development. What is the role then, what would be realistic roles for the state and for the role of openness in this scenario, considering that also openness is co-opted by the same platforms to develop their models? I wonder what your views are on the state and the openness models.

Diogo Cortiz da Silva:
Okay, so I think for these questions I invite… Ryan, to reply, and then I open to all the speakers to comment, okay? Ryan, are you there? Yeah, yeah.

Ryan Budish :
Yeah, so, I mean, thank you for this question. I mean, I think that it’s important to, you know, in some ways, I would push back a little on the framing of the question, because I think the, when you look at the companies that are developing these large language models, they are actually quite different, and have rather different business models and incentives, and, you know, and so I can, you know, speak for Meta and our view, and, you know, as I said in my prepared remarks, you know, that we believe very strongly in open source and open innovation, and that’s actually something that we believe not only will help improve the quality of the models, and improve the safety of the models, but will also help ensure that this isn’t just a domain of a handful of tech companies. You know, when you think about how difficult and expensive it is to train the models, you know, if the only options that are available, if you’re a small business or a researcher that wants to use a large language model, and the only options that are out there are proprietary models that you have to pay for, then you end up with a situation where there’s potentially a race for the bottom, where people choose, you know, cheaper, low quality models, or maybe they try to build their own models, and, you know, and maybe, you know, there’s a lot of challenges there as well, and so one of the things that we think about since is that by open sourcing many models and making them available, that we’re actually able to help support a lot of good research and good innovation in businesses by making it possible for people to have access to many high quality models, and so for us, I think it’s not about gating access to these models. It’s actually about how do we enable more people to take advantage of these models, and then to be able to make them better and build on them and innovate, and when researchers find flaws or issues with the models, and then those can then be fixed, pulled back into the models, and then those fixes can be shared by everyone who’s building on top of those models, so anyway, those are some of my thoughts on the openness piece of it.

Diogo Cortiz da Silva:
I open to all the speakers if you want to follow up on this question. Emily Bender, yeah, you can go, Emily, please. Actually, I have a comment on a different topic,

Emily Bender:
so I’ll wait. Yeah, I was going to comment on this topic, so if I may then.

Dominique Hazaël Massieux:
Yeah, so just reacting on what Ryan was sharing about open source as a potential solution in that space, so first, absolutely, the more open source we get on these models, I think the better in terms of transparency, accountability, research improvements, and distributions, indeed, of the benefits of LLMs, but I think there is a critical aspect of LLMs that makes open source a bit of a mixed story. You get open source access to the code that is, or to the models that are generated by the training, but you don’t get access, you don’t get open source access to the training data, which are clearly where the gist of the value of these models are. So, really, it’s only half open in that sense, and given all the stakes there are in terms of selection, curation of the data, the fact that, I mean, for understandable reasons, those training data are not part of the opening makes it, I think, an imperfect answer to the question of openness, and there are discussions that I think need to be had about transparency around training data sources and the curation process that has accompanied these sources, but until we are having this conversation, I don’t think that open sourcing’s resulting model is a sufficient

Diogo Cortiz da Silva:
answer to this desire of openness. Thank you, Dominique. Emile, you?

Emily Bender:
Yeah, so on a slightly different topic, I want to say that all of these discussions become clearer if we stop using the phrase artificial intelligence or AI, because it’s not well-defined. We should talk in terms of automation and then talk about what’s being automated, and as we talk about language models in particular, it is, I think, unhelpful to conflate things like the use of language models as a component in automatic transcription or automatic translation systems, and their use to generate synthetic media. Those are different tasks. They do happen to rely on the same trained models, but they’re being used very differently, and so from a governance perspective, I think it’s important to keep it straight. While I’m talking, I want to call out the fact that the no-language-left-behind model for MEDA is a very colonialist project. I believe that languages belong to their communities, and that means communities should have control over what happens to data in their language. They should have control over what kind of technology is built, and if there’s profit to be made from building that technology, it should be fed back into those communities. I think this is an extremely important point for people from the Global South. It is not right for multinational corporations in the Global North to be profiting off of language technology from Global South communities. Thank you. Thank you, Emily. Rafael, do you want

Rafael Evangelista:
to comment something? Just to add to the question made by Teo, I think that you said that states don’t have the conditions to compete with those. I think if they are really invested in creating something that can be used by the public, it can be like the word open source has been used here, and it’s really hard to define what it means, because it can be like it can use a license that is really free or can use a license that just, okay. But the point is, my point is, I think if the states recognize that the web is something that they should care for, and if these tools to produce content is something that should be really accessible and controlled by the states or the communities or the public, they can invest and not only train models, but have servers and have, because there’s a lot of costs, and I think it’s not really realistic to think of Global South companies trying to do that, but the states, or at least the bigger states of the Global South, we can think of the BRICS countries, etc.

Diogo Cortiz da Silva:
Okay, Wagner, you want to comment on this? Then I move to you.

Vagner Santana :
Yeah, I have quick comments around the idea of technology as being not good or bad. I think that that starts the discussion around a neutrality of technology, and I think that that connects a little bit of the discussion tried to bring on the context of creation and use, and how this is different, different people, different values, and that is not true, right? It’s not neutral, at least the lens that we apply to this discussion, and it’s interesting how we’re discussing about the content of web pages, and if we connect really simply with different contents, like a media or code, we need to express, or we have mechanisms for control, like creative commons, how to use, how to use, how to redistribute, and for a large language models, this was just take for granted and for gathering data, right? And when we compared and contrast with search engines, we discussed, we had a link back, we had ways of finding content, now it’s for generating content, and the content creators, we don’t have transparency on that, and how the stakeholders related to this very content that’s being created are being considered, right? So just wanted to discuss, and to the idea of languages, I totally agree with Professor Bender, and there’s the whole discussion on value alignment, who is aligning those models, right? If we’re talking about different languages, different communities, are they participating on these alignments, right? So, yeah, thanks. Thank you, Wagner. We have one comment here, please.

Audience:
Thank you very much. My name is Peter Puck, I’m the chairman of the World Summit Awards, and we have started in 2003 to look at and show in which way ICTs are used for creation of quality content, and over the last 20 years as part of the WSIS process, the World Summit Awards have created a library of about 12,500 examples of high quality or higher quality content projects, products, and initiatives, and about 1,600 winners on that level. I want to first start and congratulate the organizers of this session, because I think this has been one of the most substantial sessions of IGF this year, and I want to stress that very much. It has been exceptionally good, and I want to also make sure that you see that the value you give to the different kind of aspects, having somebody from Meta, having somebody from the World Wide Web Consortium, having different views, and also from academia and technology community, is really valuable. I want to stress a number of points and then come to a question. One of the points is I really appreciate Emily Bender’s point on looking at the colonialism with technology, especially when we look at the effects the platform intermediaries have had on the internet, and I want to just reiterate what I said in some other contexts here at the IGF. It is that we have actually, with the platform intermediaries, replaced through the internet and cannibalized the editorial intermediaries, and that is something really very, very key to the question also of the large language models which are creating new intermediary structures, and that I think is very important. The other thing is that I thought that Wagner’s insistence and bringing up this issue of the studying technology in the context of use and how people repurpose technology in multiple ways, I think that’s a very valuable, interesting, let’s say culturalist attitude towards the technology, but then the question is does he have actually examples of how large language models can actually do that and how they structure and so on, and I think there’s a lot of interesting aspects in this. My main point would, however, be on the issue of the question of we are looking at the web as a public information infrastructure, and that is something which is only, let’s say, part of the picture which is underlying the governance imperative to the internet. I would think that the governance imperative and the goals and aspects should go towards a public knowledge infrastructure, and that relates very much to the question of how to finance it, and when we come to this model of the journalism, the model of the journalism is actually a model of creation of, let’s say, having these two markets of having advertising and subscription, and now we need to go into looking at what are the economics actually of this new public knowledge infrastructure, and one of the criticisms which I have of IGF conversations and sessions is that the economic side is, let’s say, very much or largely ignored, and I want to thank very much here, Raphael, for bringing up this issue of the economics of content creation and how we do this, and I would be happy to engage at other fora on the issue of how to tax this and how to work this. I think Deutsche Welle is a very good example of how one can say that there is somebody who is really moving into the multimedia space in a very interesting way, combining public broadcasting model together with a creation of many different kind of knowledges, but my question would be in which way can we continue within the IGF this kind of conversation regarding, for instance, creating new economic revenue streams for quality content as part of a governance imperative for the internet. I hope that this has been a very clear question. Thank you very much for giving me this space. Thank you for your comments and your question, and Raphael, do you want to start?

Rafael Evangelista:
Yeah, thank you for your comments, and really insightful, and I think that we have to recognize that the internet doesn’t live by itself in a separate realm or something like that, it’s like we live in a capitalistic society, and this just drives the companies, and they can say they can have ethical worries and guidelines, but we know that at the end of the day, the thing that is most important is to please the shareholders, etc., and I think we have to look at the internet and the web with the lens of what are the economic incentives that are playing for content or for the development of technology, how this drives, so we have to, I think it’s important for, I think IGF can be part of that, to build new institutions or re-institutionalize the creation of culture, of knowledge, etc., like regain the belief in institutions that can socially discuss some guidelines for this kind of production, and to put much of our resources on this kind of institutions. Thank you. Any other speaker want to comment on this? Because we are running out of time, so we

Diogo Cortiz da Silva:
do not have time for more questions, so I would like to thank you, all the speakers and the audience, to join us today. We are in the beginning of a new era, and we are raising new questions, and I’m sure next IGF you will be here again discussing maybe the same topics, but with more information, and of course asking different new questions. So thank you all, and the session is closed. Thank you.

Audience

The analysis consists of multiple arguments and stances on different topics. One argument is presented by Elisa Hever from the Dutch government, who raises concerns about the lack of significant progress in International Domain Names (IDNs). Despite the constant reiteration of their importance, Elisa questions why there has been little development in this area. It is mentioned that resolutions pertaining to IDNs have already been introduced by the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) for quite some time. Elisa suggests that governments and the business community should play a more active role in driving progress in the field of IDNs.

Another topic discussed is the role of language-based data in Artificial Intelligence (AI). It is asserted that AI heavily relies on substantial language-based data to learn and function effectively. This reliance on language-based data makes it difficult for AI to be applied to lesser used or minority languages if the necessary data is unavailable. The argument suggests that as AI requires a large amount of language-based data, its growth and application may be limited for lesser used languages.

One observation made is the lack of support for indigenous languages in global digital platforms. It is highlighted that Indonesia has over 700 indigenous languages, with over 30 languages using non-Latin scripts. The speaker’s attempts to register an International Domain Name (IDN) with ICANN for the Japanese and Balinese languages in Indonesia were denied based on specific requirements not being met. This lack of support for indigenous languages raises questions about the inclusivity and support provided by ICANN. It is further critiqued that ICANN’s denial of the IDN application was based on the languages not being used as official communication or administrative languages. The language requirements for IDNs are seen as a ‘chicken and egg’ problem, where support for the languages is limited due to their lack of recognition, and their lack of recognition is partly attributed to the lack of support.

Efforts are being made to address the need for digital tools to support indigenous languages and cultures. Collaboration with ICANN and other entities is being sought to develop a label generation role for these languages. By providing access to International Domain Names, it is believed that indigenous communities would be able to engage with digital platforms and enhance their cultural presence. However, further details or evidence about ongoing efforts in this area are not mentioned.

Another point discussed is how to encourage the private sector to prioritize language inclusivity when developing technology. Although an argument is provided, no further details or evidence are given to support this point. It remains unclear how or why the private sector should prioritize language inclusivity in technology development.

Lastly, the analysis highlights the challenges faced by the deaf and hard of hearing community in relation to auto-captioning services. It is argued that the community faces censorship when relying on auto-captioning services. An example is given of Lydia Best, who calls for uncensored auto-captioning services. The argument suggests that the deaf and hard of hearing community should be provided with uncensored auto-captioning services to ensure equal access to information.

In conclusion, the analysis presents various arguments and stances on different topics. It raises important questions about the progress and support in the field of IDNs, the limitations of AI in relation to language-based data, the lack of inclusivity for indigenous languages in global digital platforms and ICANN’s approach, the need for digital tools to support indigenous languages and cultures, the encouragement of language inclusivity in technology development by the private sector, and the challenges faced by the deaf and hard of hearing community with auto-captioning services. However, some arguments lack supporting evidence, and further details are required to fully understand the ongoing efforts and potential solutions in these areas.

Edmon Chung

The discussion centers around the importance of establishing a fully multilingual internet to foster digital inclusion and promote language justice. Presently, while there are over 6,500 languages spoken globally, approximately 60% of internet content is in English. This poses a challenge for the next billion internet users who do not have English as their first language. Therefore, it is crucial to develop a more inclusive internet that caters to the linguistic diversity of its users.

A fundamental aspect of achieving language justice is ensuring universal acceptance of internationalized domain names (IDNs) and email addresses. However, several obstacles must be addressed to make this a reality. Currently, only 10% of top-level domains are internationalized out of a total of 1,500 domains. Furthermore, out of the 350 million domain names registered worldwide, only 1% are internationalized. This emphasizes the need to increase adoption and usage of IDNs.

Technical and policy requirements also pose challenges to achieving universal acceptance. It is necessary to have the appropriate technical infrastructure in place to support IDNs and email addresses in different languages. Additionally, policy interventions are needed to ensure that stakeholders recognize and prioritize the importance of language justice.

Demand and support are also significant factors. Suppliers providing IDN registrations often do not perceive sufficient demand, necessitating government intervention to overcome this issue. Governments can play a vital role by integrating universal acceptance readiness into their tender processes and system upgrades. By making it a requirement, they can incentivize the adoption and support of IDNs and email addresses.

Education is another crucial factor in promoting the use of IDNs and email addresses. Currently, these are often treated as mere add-ons rather than being incorporated into the basic protocol. One suggestion is to teach these elements as part of Networking 101, which would help normalize their use and promote greater inclusivity.

Furthermore, the dominance of English on the internet has implications for artificial intelligence (AI). Currently, 57% of web content is in English, resulting in AI systems predominantly being English-based. This limits the capabilities and inclusivity of AI technologies. By promoting the use of IDNs and email addresses, content and services in different languages can be encouraged, making AI more inclusive and diverse.

The foundational infrastructure of the internet is essential for the development of multilingual content. The Domain Name System (DNS), created in 1983, serves as the backbone for the internet infrastructure. Without a well-developed DNS, it becomes challenging to create and access multilingual content effectively.

The International Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) has initiated a universal acceptance program to address these issues. This program aims to bring about significant changes and upgrade ICANN’s internal systems to be universal acceptance ready. However, implementing universal acceptance faces challenges due to technical and policy requirements.

Additionally, ICANN is addressing the issue of indigenous languages through ongoing policy development. It is important to revisit the label generation process in light of the international decade of indigenous language. This demonstrates a commitment to inclusivity and the recognition of the importance of preserving and promoting indigenous languages online.

Edmon Chung, an advocate in this field, believes that relying solely on market forces will not be sufficient to support indigenous languages and universal acceptance, as market failure may occur. Therefore, policy intervention is necessary. Intervention could involve providing funds or enforcing requirements in tenders to motivate stakeholders to prioritize language justice and universal acceptance.

In conclusion, establishing a fully multilingual internet is crucial for achieving digital inclusion, language justice, and sustainable development. Universal acceptance of internationalized domain names and email addresses is a key step in this process. However, challenges related to technology, policy, and demand need to be overcome. Education, government support, and enhanced infrastructure are also necessary to promote inclusivity and diversity in internet content and services. The ongoing efforts by ICANN and the recognition of indigenous languages demonstrate a commitment to addressing these issues. Ultimately, policy intervention is crucial to ensure that universal acceptance becomes a priority and facilitates an internet that caters to the linguistic diversity of its users.

Mark Durdin

The analysis highlights several key issues related to internationalised domain names and universal acceptance adoption. It points out that technical issues persist in parsing certain email addresses, as demonstrated by Gmail’s struggle to recognise a Thai email address. This exemplifies the difficulties that users face with internationalised domain names.

Another important point raised is the need to support more languages, especially indigenous ones, in order to improve universal acceptance. It is noted that the Khmer label generation rules currently do not support most indigenous languages of Cambodia. However, there is hope as the software developed by Mark’s team has been able to correct most of the mis-encodings in the Khmer script.

Furthermore, the analysis highlights the crucial role of wide adoption of label generation rules for the uptake of internationalised domain names. It mentions how Mark registered a spoofed KhmerScript.com domain as proof that the rules aren’t widely adopted. It is also mentioned that many Asian scripts have multiple ways of encoding visually identical words, which creates potential for spoofing.

The computing industry is called upon to support recommendations around universal acceptance, and the analysis acknowledges those who have already contributed to this cause. Furthermore, it encourages the rest of the computing industry to start supporting these recommendations.

Engaging with open-source communities and major industry vendors is seen as a key step towards enhancing the accessibility and usage of less dominant languages in digital spaces. The launch of the Digitally Disadvantaged Languages Subcommittee by the Unico Consortium, along with the international decade of indigenous languages, provides an opportunity to raise awareness and collaborate with these communities.

It is also highlighted that the promotion of universal acceptance and internationalised domain names in an accessible format is crucial to raise awareness among software developers. The analysis notes that software developers often perceive ICANN as low-level, resulting in universal acceptance and internationalised domain names being overlooked. Accessible information on these topics is crucial to clarify common questions and better inform developers.

Finally, the analysis suggests evaluating the support level of universal acceptance in prominent internet powerhouses and end-user software. This can help identify gaps in terms of universal acceptance support and facilitate improvements to open-source communities, even without waiting for commercial priorities.

Overall, the analysis emphasises the importance of addressing the technical issues related to internationalised domain names and universal acceptance adoption. It calls for support from the computing industry, engagement with open-source communities, promotion and awareness campaigns, and evaluation of universal acceptance support in prominent platforms. By addressing these issues and implementing the suggested recommendations, it is believed that universal acceptance can be improved, leading to greater inclusivity and accessibility in digital spaces.

Nodumo Dhlamini

The analysis reveals that internationalised domain names (IDNs) have the potential to address several significant issues in Africa, including accessibility, inclusivity, and language preservation. IDNs facilitate accessibility in native language scripts, ensuring that individuals can access the internet in their preferred languages. This breaks the language barrier and allows more people to benefit from the opportunities provided by the internet.

Furthermore, IDNs contribute to inclusivity by enabling the creation and dissemination of local content in various languages. This allows communities to express themselves in their native languages and ensures that their voices are heard online. Additionally, IDNs support cultural and linguistic preservation, helping to safeguard Africa’s rich linguistic heritage.

However, the adoption of IDNs requires certain prerequisites. It is crucial to raise awareness about IDNs among internet users and promote technical improvements to support their implementation. Moreover, user education is essential to ensure the proper use of IDNs and address security risks. This includes educating users about the potential dangers of phishing and domain spoofing and providing them with the necessary tools and knowledge to protect themselves. Robust security measures are also necessary to safeguard users’ data and privacy.

To effectively reach underserved communities, a thoughtful and inclusive approach is crucial. This involves providing digital literacy training to ensure that individuals have the necessary skills to utilise IDNs and actively participate in the digital world. Additionally, efforts should be made to make internet access more affordable and accessible to these communities. Subsidising internet access and exploring offline engagement strategies, such as workshops and campaigns, can play a pivotal role in bridging the digital divide.

Monitoring the impact of IDNs adoption is essential for success. Implementing a feedback mechanism and impact assessment strategy will provide valuable insights into the challenges faced and the progress made. This information can guide future improvements and ensure that IDNs effectively address the needs of African communities.

In conclusion, IDNs can break the language barrier, promote inclusivity, and contribute to language preservation in Africa. However, their successful adoption requires raising awareness, technical advancements, user education, robust security measures, and an inclusive approach that includes digital literacy training and subsidised internet access. Monitoring the impact and gathering feedback will help refine and improve the implementation of IDNs in Africa.

Theresa Swinehart

ICANN, the organisation dedicated to Internationalised Domain Names (IDNs) and Universal Acceptance, has implemented a comprehensive strategy to support the adoption and use of IDNs and promote Universal Acceptance. This strategy involves raising awareness and providing training to various stakeholders, including domain name registries, registrars, developers, and users. Specific teams have been established within ICANN to focus on these efforts and ensure the widespread understanding and acceptance of IDNs.

In addition to its own efforts, ICANN collaborates with other relevant institutions such as the Universal Acceptance Steering Group and UNESCO. These collaborations aim to leverage the expertise and resources of these organizations to further promote IDNs and Universal Acceptance. ICANN recognises that achieving universal acceptance requires a collective effort and believes that partnerships and collaboration are key to realising this goal.

ICANN is also actively engaged in policy work related to domain names. Through its policy development processes, ICANN ensures that the rules and regulations governing domain names are continuously reviewed and updated to align with changing technology and user needs. By actively participating in policy discussions and consultations, ICANN advocates for the interests of all stakeholders and strives to create an inclusive and accessible domain name system.

In its commitment to fostering innovation and inclusivity, ICANN plans to open up another round for the introduction of new top-level domains (TLDs). This initiative will provide an opportunity for all language groups and different regions to register domain names in their local scripts. By enabling the use of local scripts, ICANN aims to encourage linguistic diversity on the internet, allowing people to express their identity and culture through their online presence.

To ensure the success of IDNs and Universal Acceptance, ICANN seeks to raise awareness and generate demand. It acknowledges that successful implementation of Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6) through government contracts can create awareness among various stakeholders, including users, businesses, and service providers. Additionally, ICANN recognises the significance of local community education in encouraging the generation of local content and raising awareness about the importance of inclusive online platforms.

ICANN also emphasises the need to link the digital world with the preservation of culture and languages at the national level. By recognising the value and importance of cultural heritage, as highlighted by UNESCO and other entities, ICANN acknowledges the need for safeguarding and promoting languages and cultural diversity in the digital age.

Furthermore, ICANN emphasises the importance of creating consumer awareness to generate demand. By engaging with end-users and providing information about the benefits and possibilities of IDNs, ICANN aims to create a conducive environment for the adoption and usage of IDNs.

In the specific context of the Javanese language, ICANN is actively working with the Javanese community to resolve categorisation issues related to Javanese script in Unicode. The team is collaborating with the Javanese community to develop the Javanese script as a recommended identifier within Unicode. ICANN is supportive of ongoing collaboration with the Javanese community, recognising the importance of inclusivity and their expertise in resolving this matter.

In conclusion, ICANN is dedicated to the work around Internationalised Domain Names and Universal Acceptance. Its strategy includes various initiatives such as raising awareness, providing training, collaborating with relevant institutions, and advocating for policies that support inclusive domain name practices. By opening up a new round for the introduction of new top-level domains, advocating for collaboration and partnerships, raising awareness and demand, preserving culture and languages, and supporting community collaboration, ICANN strives to create an inclusive and accessible digital landscape for all.

Marielza Oliveira

Multilingualism and universal access to the internet are crucial for achieving digital inclusion and reducing the global digital divide. Astonishingly, around 37% of the world’s population, equivalent to approximately 2.7 billion people, currently lack internet access. This staggering figure highlights the urgent need to address this issue and ensure equal opportunities for all to participate in the digital realm.

One of the main obstacles to achieving digital inclusion is the lack of linguistic diversity in cyberspace. This problem disproportionately affects indigenous and underserved communities, who face difficulties in accessing digital services due to the absence of their languages online. Recognizing this challenge, UNESCO and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) are working collaboratively to promote multilingualism in cyberspace and develop a universal acceptance tool. This tool aims to facilitate access to online resources for individuals, irrespective of their native language, thereby promoting universal inclusion.

The impact of linguistic diversity in cyberspace cannot be overstated. Addressing the lack of multilingualism is not only vital for digital inclusion but also holds the potential for significant societal progress. The internet is globally recognized as a powerful tool for positive transformation. However, for the 37% of the world’s population who remain disconnected, this potential remains untapped.

The overall sentiment towards promoting multilingualism and universal access to the internet is positive. It is crucial to prioritize indigenous and underserved communities in the provision of digital services. By bridging the linguistic gap and ensuring equal internet access for all, we can make substantial strides towards achieving SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure) and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities).

In conclusion, promoting multilingualism and universal access to the internet is essential for achieving digital inclusion and reducing the digital divide. The efforts of organizations such as UNESCO and ICANN to address the lack of linguistic diversity in cyberspace are commendable. By developing a universal acceptance tool and focusing on underserved communities, we can unlock the vast potential of the internet for positive transformation and uplift the billions of individuals currently left behind.

Moderator

The speakers in the discussion emphasized the importance of a fully multilingual internet for digital inclusion and language justice. They highlighted the fact that there are over 6,500 languages worldwide, with over 2,000 in Asia alone, and yet almost 60% of the internet’s content is still in English. This creates a significant language barrier for the next billion internet users who do not have English as their first language. Therefore, a fully multilingual internet is seen as the foundation for achieving digital inclusion and language justice.

To ensure a multilingual internet, the speakers argued for the need for internationalised domain names and email addresses. They mentioned that domain names and email addresses are the starting points for people utilising the internet, and without support for different languages, the multilingual internet is incomplete. Currently, only 10% of top-level domains on the internet use languages other than the alphanumeric A to Z. Therefore, internationalised domain names and email addresses are seen as essential for achieving language justice.

The implementation of a multilingual internet requires both policy intervention and a multi-stakeholder approach. The speakers highlighted that governments should demand in their tenders for IT systems that the systems be IDN email-ready. Additionally, schools and universities should include internationalised domains and email addresses as basic protocols. This implies that policy intervention is necessary to drive the adoption of multilingual internet practices.

The speakers also recognised the potential of the internet as a tool for positive transformation and societal progress. They suggested that advocating for multilingualism and universal inclusion is necessary to harness this potential and ensure that no communities are left behind. However, they also pointed out that a significant portion of the world’s population, estimated to be around 2.7 billion people, are still not taking advantage of the internet’s transformative power. This creates a barrier between these communities and the vast pool of digital knowledge available.

UNESCO and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) were mentioned as organisations working together to enhance digital inclusion and multilingualism in cyberspace. Their partnership aims to bridge the language gap and ensure that internet access and content is available in multiple languages.

The discussion also explored the computing industry’s role in supporting universal acceptance. It was suggested that the industry should support the recommendations made for universal acceptance, which would contribute to greater inclusivity in terms of language diversity on the internet.

In addition to language barriers, AI bias was identified as another challenge. Due to the dominance of English in online content, AI systems tend to favour English and may have biases against other languages. This highlights the need to address language inclusivity concerns in AI development.

The open-source community was recognised as a potential ally in improving language inclusivity. Collaboration with the open-source community could raise awareness and drive the adoption of multilingual practices in software development.

The involvement of the Unico Consortium in engaging industry partners was seen as an important step in addressing the issue of digitally disadvantaged languages. The consortium, made up of major industry vendors, is working to promote language inclusivity and support underserved communities.

The discussion also touched on the low level of awareness among software developers regarding universal acceptance and internationalised domain names. It was noted that accessible documentation and guidelines are lacking in this area, and there is a need for clear and accessible documentation to engage the open-source community.

The speakers highlighted the importance of developing local digital content and awareness in the digital world. Governments and businesses were urged to take initiatives and promote local digital content, as the lack of local language content can hinder engagement with the online world. Creating consumer awareness and linking the preservation of culture and languages to the digital world were seen as ways to generate demand for local content.

Overall, the speakers urged a movement towards a multilingual internet that promotes digital inclusion and language justice. They emphasised the need for policy intervention, a multi-stakeholder approach, and collaboration with various stakeholders, including governments, industry, and the open-source community, to achieve this vision. By addressing language barriers, promoting universal acceptance, and developing local digital content, the internet can become a truly inclusive and transformative tool for all.

Moderator:
So, my name is Jarong, I work for ICANN, I’m the head of the Asia-Pacific Office, I’m based in Singapore, and today’s session is on multilingual internet, a key catalyst for access and inclusion. So, with me, we have two on-site speakers and three speakers speaking remotely, so I’ll introduce them. So, on my right is Mr Edmund Chung, he’s our board member from ICANN and also CEO of DotAsia. And on my left is Ms Teresa Swinehart, our Senior Vice President for Global Domains and Strategy from ICANN. And joining remotely, we have Dr Marielle Oliveira, she’s the Director for the Division for Digital Inclusion Policies and Transformation Communications and Information Sector from UNESCO. And also Ms Nodumo Vlamini, the Director for ICT Services and Knowledge Management, the Association of African Universities. And also, last but not least, Mr Mark Durden, he’s the Key Project Manager from SIL International. Thank you so much for taking the time to join me, my esteemed speakers, and also our participants for today. Now, let’s dive in, we only have an hour, with a pretty interesting topic. So, can I invite Edmund to first help us frame the issue of multilingual internet. Edmund, can you share about language, do you think it is a barrier to access? And at a high level, talk about what are some gaps or problems, particularly pertaining to access, such as internationalised domain names, which is using domain names in local scripts, as well as the related issues of adopting internationalised domain names. And a broader question to this, perhaps, is at a high level, do you think this is a policy problem, a technical problem, or a socio-economic problem, or all of them? Over to you, please, Edmund.

Edmon Chung:
Thank you, Jarung. Anything we discuss here is all of them, right, at IGF. But I guess, as Jarung mentioned, to ask me to start by framing the question, it’s really, I think the title today is really important. And I will start by saying that a fully multilingual internet really is the foundation towards digital inclusion. And that’s, you know, I think that’s very important. And if you look at the world, there are over 6,500 languages, you know, around the world. Many of them, over 2,000 of them actually here in Asia, where we are. And yet, today, on the web, almost 60% of the internet’s content is still in English. So really, a multilingual internet, I believe, is essential for digital inclusion, because the next billion who’s coming online do not have English as their first language. And that’s, you know, that’s the issue we have. That’s the topic we’re talking about. And the kind of the doorway to access information, and also one of the key kind of starting point for people utilizing the internet, is our domain names and email addresses. So really, having internationalized domain names and internationalized email addresses is a foundation for development of content and services in local languages. So in that, you know, taken in that context and in the digital inclusion context, we really see that, we can really see that universal acceptance of internationalized domain names and email addresses is really about language justice. It’s about marginalized language communities impacted by language barriers. And here we’re talking about people, you know, accessing the internet, and also as a beginning of accessing information on the internet in their local language. Again, you know, domain names and email addresses is maybe a very small part of it, but without which the multilingual internet is not complete. And speaking of language justice, I think the next speaker will talk more about it, but I think, put in a perspective of the UN, we are in the international decade of indigenous languages. And that’s an important way to frame this question as well. And I’m seeing in the audience, my friend Yudo there, that talked to me about having the Java, Javanese language to be expressed on the internet and in internationalized domain names. These are some of the things, because I think this is what we’re talking about. And the ICANN community, I think we have been working very hard for many years, working through these technical standards, the linguistic and script policies to ensure secure and stable introduction of internationalized domain names on the DNS. But can we do more? The answer is, of course, yes. We do need to do more, and yes, we can do more. Today, there are about 1,500 top-level domains on the internet, and only 10% is actually using other languages other than the alphanumeric A to Z 0 to 9. Actually, no 0 to 9, sorry about that. Top-level domains don’t include numbers. But the point is, only 10% are internationalized domain names. And out of the 350 million domain names registered worldwide, only 1%, about 1%, is internationalized domain names. So registries and registrars do need to work harder to ensure their systems are fully universal acceptance and IDN-ready. And this is also even for non-IDN-related, so even for registries and registrars not offering internationalized domain name services, it’s important for their systems to be ready for internationalized domain names and email addresses, because your registrant, even if they’re registering an English domain name, could be using an internationalized email address, right? I mean, that’s what we are talking about in terms of universal acceptance. So it is a technical implementation issue, back to Jaron’s question, but it will require policy intervention. I believe governments need to demand in their tenders for IT systems, for example, that systems be IDN email-ready. Schools and universities should include internationalized domain names and email addresses as basic protocols for networking 101, for example. And we need other stakeholders to join in the work, and that’s why we need to talk about it here at the IGF, because we need a movement, and this movement for language justice really starts here in the internet governance community. So I guess I’ll, you know, and finally I wanted to just note that, of course, just the internationalized domain names and email addresses themselves does not solve the multilingual internet issue, of course not. I mean, but it is a foundational component, because without which we cannot realize a fully multilingual internet, and, you know, this will require a multi-stakeholder approach to address the different issues that is beyond ICANN and the immediate community’s reach in many ways. And the key aspect, I believe, is to really get the end users and the community to realize that this is not just a matter of convenience or cool domain names and email addresses, but it is about realizing a sustainable multilingual internet that cares about language justice.

Moderator:
Thank you, Edmund. I really like the key word about language justice, and here at the IGF, I remember there was a side event I attended on the soft launch of a network for social justice and digital resilience. And I think, you know, just tying in one of those themes, really having a multilingual internet being about language justice is also a form of social justice. Now, let’s move on quickly to our next speaker, Dr. Marielsa. So, Marielsa is from UNESCO, and can you share about the background of multilingualism at the UN, and where are we today?

Marielza Oliveira:
Are there any recent multilingualism initiatives by the UN or UNESCO? Over to you, please. Thank you very much. Hello, everyone. Particularly our dear ICANN colleagues, with whom the UNESCO team has been working to advance multilingualism in cyberspace. I’m really happy to join this session today, as this is a very important topic to me. And I apologize that I’ll have to leave soon to another commitment, but let me share some thoughts with you. First, I love that the previous speaker was talking about language justice, because this is really about realizing a human right to freedom of expression and access to information. So, you can’t really share your thoughts or seek information if you cannot do it in your own language. And since its invention, the internet has been acknowledged as a really powerful tool for societal progress, a source of information, a means to exchange products and services, but it has also been recognized to have the ability to empower individuals, particularly granting them, enabling and upholding the rights to access to information, expression, and so on, while simultaneously amplifying the voices of marginalized groups. However, we must accept the current reality is that an estimated 37% of the world population, or close to 2.7 billion people, are still not taking advantage of the internet’s transformative power. And this means that there is a barrier that separates a large part of humanity from the pool of knowledge in the form of digital resources. And as more and more services are going digital, as noted by the UN Secretary General’s recent report, we are faced with the pressing challenge of connecting the next one billion users to really benefit from the digital processes. And that means that we must up the ante in providing digital services to the indigenous and underserved communities that have struggled for a long time with limited access and representation in the digital sphere. And the lack of multilingualism in cyberspace is an essential aspect of achieving, part of the big barrier for achieving digital inclusion. And in 2003, the UNESCO General Conference adopted the recommendation concerning the promotion and use of multilingualism and universal access to cyberspace. It is a landmark provision, and the recommendation provides a framework for the member states to adopt legislation and other measures that are conducive to the promotion of multilingualism in digital ecosystems. And this includes forging new partnerships, facilitating mechanisms for multilingual domain, names and associated tools, content and process. And UNESCO and ICANN have a longstanding partnership on this front, and even this session has been, you know, proposed on our collective understanding that the technology deployed still has to catch up to this progress to allow for digital inclusion in multilingual communities globally. It is our collective responsibility to ensure that not only new technologies have to be innovated, but the communities must also be brought closer to the ongoing digital transformation. And this can be done only if we address the glaring deficiency of linguistic diversity on the Internet. And so, as one of the co-leaders in the implementation of the International Decade of Indigenous Languages that goes from 2022 to 2032, UNESCO is playing a pivotal role in this, in championing the preservation, promotion, and revitalization of indigenous languages worldwide. There is a global action plan which highlights the importance of fostering favorable conditions for digital empowerment, freedom of expression, media development, access to information, and language technology. And this is where ICANN and UNESCO have been working together to bring synergy to their efforts. Collectively, we must really prioritize making Internet platforms and applications accessible to people with diverse linguistic abilities and thus ensure, really, universal participation and inclusion. And here, let me just say that the interplay between languages and universal acceptance is complex and multifaceted. While achieving universal acceptance of languages is unquestionably essential, like the previous speaker mentioned, a foundation, we must also focus on the creation of digital tools, products, and services tailored specifically to the needs of underserved communities and currently unserved communities. And it’s incumbent upon UNESCO and ICANN to create a tool for universal acceptance, one that encompasses the notion of universal inclusion and remedies this deficiency in Internet linguistic diversity. And so, I’d like to say to all our participants today, I urge all of us to maintain a real awareness of the Internet’s immense potential as a tool for positive transformation and for us to work together to unify, innovate, and advocate for multilingualism and universal inclusion. So, I hope that we all will be working together. So, thank you.

Moderator:
Thank you so much, Marielle. So, we’ve heard a couple of technical terms in some ways. So, internationalized domain names, which are domain names in different scripts beyond the English alphabet, and also the term universal acceptance, which is in software and applications to universally accept these domain names Now, let’s move on very quickly to Teresa. Teresa, can you share about ICANN’s work? Just now, Marielle just mentioned UNESCO and ICANN in close collaboration. But can you share more specifically about ICANN, like ICANN’s work in relation to internationalized domain names and universal acceptance?

Theresa Swinehart:
Please. Brilliant. Well, it’s great to be here and to be having this conversation. I think, as Edmund said, we need a movement and we need awareness. With the amount of languages spoken in all the different regions of the world that are not reflected in ASCII character sets or perhaps have a longer variation to the right of the dot, we need to afford the ability for those to be used and play a strong role in this and partner with others. A couple areas, how it’s anchored within the construct of the mission. The IDN work, or internationalized domain name and universal acceptance, is recognized both in the strategic focus and it’s included in our strategic plan. Our strategic plan, and the reason this is important, is developed with community input and really looking towards what the future is. It’s based on the analysis of trends and where the future goes. That’s compiled and then brought to the board and the board looks at what the final strategic plan is but also puts it out for awareness to the community. So it’s really an all-inclusive process as we do this. So the fact that IDNs and universal acceptance are anchored within the strategic plan for the 21 to 25 is an important factor and we anticipate it to be reflected likewise in the next iteration. Importantly, it’s also an element that’s reflected in our interim CEO’s goals very strongly. So again, important to show that we are taking this work that we’re doing seriously but also that this is really what the future is about and that’s important for ICANN’s mission and mandate in serving the public interest. Moving more specifically, with regards to internationalized domain names, there’s a couple areas. More on the operational technical side, the working on tables to make sure that if it’s registered it’s following a certain table and making sure that those tables are compiled. If we look at the policy side, there’s work within the generic name supporting organization with regards to policies for internationalized domain names on the right of the dot and within the country code supporting organization there is further work on what was a policy to enable initial country code top-level domains to be accepted in IDNs. There’s further work on that to ensure that there’s policies for the future around that. So the reason the generic space is different is because it applies to the generic top-level domains rather than the country top-level domains. So there’s quite a bit of policy work there. We also have a team that very specifically is going out to the community and working with them on both the table work, how to create awareness, how to look at this from a technical level, how to ensure trainings around that. So we partner with different groups in different regions around the world. If we look at universal acceptance, we work very well with what’s referred to the UASG, so the Universal Acceptance Steering Group, which is a group that has been active in this space, but also working with UNESCO, working with other organizations around the importance of the ability for platforms and for the ability of email or web addresses to be able to resolve so that you know that they actually go there. And again, we’re working on the technical side of trainings, participating in partnership with others to help awareness about both the issue but also problem-solve on the technical level. On universal acceptance, in addition, last year was the first Universal Acceptance Day in which more than 50 events across 40 countries brought awareness around the importance of universal acceptance. That was attended by about 9,500 people. But if you look at the ripple effect of that in the shared experience, plus the awareness in the media around it, it was a start. We’re looking forward to holding the next Universal Acceptance Day in 2024. And with that, looking forward to partnering with other organizations and platform providers in order to create a movement and create awareness around things. And we don’t do any of this alone. We can’t, we have a limited remit in this, but we are one of the elements to that and to partner with others. And finally, if I can just touch on the next round of the introduction of new top-level domains, so when we open up that opportunity for the introduction of those, looking very much at ensuring that those who wish to register a name in internationalized domain name character sets, so something that is not ASCII, or something that might require ensuring universal acceptance, but in ASCII character sets, we’re doing quite a bit of awareness-building around that in cooperation with the fact that we will be opening another round. And that round could afford the opportunity for all language groups or different regions of the world that currently do not have a presence, so to speak, but would like one, to have that opportunity to do it, but also that technically, it will then also resolve in the system. So those are just a few examples of some key work areas, and look forward to the conversation.

Moderator:
Thank you, Theresa. So let’s hold on to the piece about the UA Day, because I think that it ties in with what, so far, all the speakers are saying, a movement, like a call to action. I feel that’s something we can really work on at this session. So let’s move on to the other speakers. First, let’s go to Mark. So Mark, from your background, you’re more of a technical person, so I’ll ask a more technical question. So what technical issues, in your experience, are you seeing in relation to internationalized domain names and universal acceptance adoption? Mark, over to you, please.

Mark Durdin:
Thank you, Zhirong, for your question, and thank you for the invitation to join this panel. I’m quite excited by the goals of universal acceptance, not least because my organization, SIL International, works primarily with indigenous and ethnic minority communities, around 1,000 different communities around the world. And so this is very important for the communities that we’re working with. It’s essential to their engagement with the online world, with the rest of the world. So I’d like to share a story, first of all, about my experience just this year with internationalized email addresses. So a little earlier this year, I downloaded the 2022 Universal Acceptance Readiness Report in PDF file. And in that report, I read that only 10% of email systems currently meet the needs of universal acceptance. So out of curiosity, I clicked on the Thai email address example in the PDF just to try it out. And if you want to try it, it’s on page 11 of that report. And Gmail popped up its compose window, but it had a completely garbled, like mojibake email address in its to field, which meant that that just wasn’t going to work. So I wasn’t going to give up that quickly. I right clicked on the email address in the PDF and copied it to my clipboard and paste it into Gmail. And no, it still didn’t work. All I got was a string of dots with an at sign in the middle. So finally, I actually selected the text of the email address in the PDF file with my mouse. And I copied that to the clipboard and I was able to paste it into Gmail and try it out. But that still didn’t work because it turns out that the mail host for my personal domain does not yet support the SMTP UTF-8 mail protocol. And so the test email bounced. Now I did eventually get it working by sending it from my Gmail address, but I’m supposed to be some sort of expert in the area. And if I can’t get it working without trying that hard, I think our community of users worldwide are going to have a very poor experience. So we really do have a long way to go. And in some areas, the computer industry moves very quickly, but some of these things seem to take a very long time. And I really don’t think that the community can afford to wait for us. So I’ll just switch tracks just a little bit now and talk about two specific areas that are close to my heart and how they overlap with universal acceptance. And that is online security and input methods. So all the way back in 2016, I came across the label generation rules for the Khmer language of Cambodia. And I was really impressed at the level of detail and effort that had gone into trying to prepare these rules to make safe domain names in the Khmer script. Now I’ve been working with Khmer input methods, and there was obviously so much detail about spoofing attacks that would be possible in Khmer that would have been covered off in those label generation rules. And I’m going to use Khmer for most of the rest of my examples because that’s where I have the most experience. But a lot of these same principles apply to many writing systems across Asia and the world. Now, even for the Khmer script, it’s more than just the Khmer language. This is the international decade of indigenous languages, as Mariel’s pointed out in her chat comment. And we need to be thinking about all the language communities that use a particular script. Now, for Latin script, it’s many, many languages, and it’s fairly well known. But even the Khmer script is used by at least eight different languages in Cambodia today. So as an industry, we need to put much more effort towards supporting those indigenous languages all around the world. And for example, and I’m not criticizing the label generation rules group here, but the Khmer label generation rules do not yet support most of the indigenous languages of Cambodia because the rules that they’ve defined are too constrained to support the ways that those languages are working with the script. It’s a huge space with fuzzy boundaries, so we still need more dedicated effort to expand and support those languages. It was also personally disappointing to me when I found out that label generation rules have not been adopted by many major top-level domain industries, including mostvisibly.com. So to prove this to myself, I registered a spoofed KhmerScript.com domain and tested it out. And yeah, I still got that domain in my collection of useless domains. So wide adoption of those label generation rules is so important for the uptake of internationalized domain names. Many Asian scripts are vastly more complex to type and encode than Latin script, and there are myriad opportunities for spoofing attacks. So I think many of us have seen those alternate script examples like Apple.com written with Cyrillic letters. Mixing scripts is one thing, but in many Asian scripts, we don’t even need to mix the scripts to see these problems. For example, and again in the Khmer script, we’ve identified example words that can be encoded in up to 15 different ways in Unicode, but they look visually identical on all devices. And what’s worse, we found real examples where Khmer users had typed those example words into webpages in every single one of those wrong encodings. And sometimes, the incorrect encodings had more matches than the correct encodings. Now, smart input methods can help with this. So for Khmer, my team have introduced a KhmerEncore keyboard that’s powered by the software that we write that automatically corrects the vast majority of those mis-encodings. This allows us to use the software to correct the mis-encodings. This helps not just with preventing spoofing, but with any text task, searching, sorting, and so on. I’d like to say a big thank you to all of those who have contributed so far to universal acceptance and for all the progress we have seen, and particularly the IDNs that are starting to take root in many places. But I’d also like to encourage the rest of the computing industry to just slow down a little bit and listen to the universal acceptance steering group and start supporting the recommendations that have already been made.

Moderator:
Thank you, Mark. So there are some technical areas which are important, but I think a key takeaway also is the key term of wide adoption. So, you know, for the industry, I think Mark made a very good point. You know, we’re sometimes chasing the next big thing, and then sometimes forgetting the people we’re leaving behind. And I think this is a good segue to go to Nodumo, because coming from an underserved region like Africa, do you think internationalized domain names and its adoption would help break the language barrier for access and or help to preserve languages?

Nodumo Dhlamini:
Nodumo, over to you. Thank you. Yes, thank you very much. Thank you for having me on this panel. Yes, Africa is an underserved region for many reasons that include unequal access to technology, unequal access to the Internet and information resources. Yes, internationalized domain names can assist to break the language barrier for Internet access. For the reasons that the various speakers have also alluded to, mostly because they facilitate accessibility in native language scripts, inclusivity, cultural and linguistic preservation, and also because they could facilitate the creation and dissemination of local content in our various languages. And I think that users would also find it more fulfilling to go to the Internet and use their own languages. I also acknowledge the challenges that have been alluded to by the speakers before me concerning IDNs, especially technical compatibility and that our systems are not yet all ready. The security concerns that have been mentioned by the previous speaker. And I think user education is also a major issue in terms of the proper use of IDNs and also addressing the security risks associated with the international domain names. Of course, there’s a need to create awareness so that we generate the needed demand for uptake of the IDNs and universal acceptance. And I think awareness raising will be a very important aspect of what we need to prioritize so that more people can understand what is possible. And we also need to look at this, not just doing awareness raising, but go a little further to do it as a package or as a broader strategy that will also address technical improvements and also address the issue of tools, user-friendly tools that can be adopted to encourage the adoption of internationalized domain names. And we need to work together. We need to work with industry. We need to collaborate as Internet stakeholders so that we can really generate awareness and also adoption. And the issue of local content is also very pivotal and important for the success of IDNs because people are likely to adopt them if there’s content available in their language. And as the previous speaker mentioned, implementing robust security measures to protect users from phishing and domain speaking is also extremely important. Concerning how we can effectively reach the grassroots and specific language communities which are not yet online, I think this requires a thoughtful and inclusive approach. We need to understand the local context and the needs. We must involve the communities. We must create training materials for language localization in the local languages and also consider launching offline engagements, workshops, and campaigns within the communities. And digital literacy training, for example, in Africa is also very fundamental. If communities are going to participate and adopt these IDNs, they need to be digitally literate. So we must really develop these partnerships and collaborations very carefully and address issues of access to internet, access to devices in underserved communities, provide actually subsidized internet access, and encourage communities to participate by sharing their stories and also creating incentives for communities who are actually involved in getting others online and also involved in ensuring the adoption of the internationalized domain names. And lastly, I think we need to have very good feedback mechanisms, a impact assessment strategy so that we can understand the challenges, the concerns, and also how well we are doing in this endeavor towards the adoption of internationalized domain names. Thank you very much.

Moderator:
Thank you, Nodumo. Some very insightful points, and I think it ties in a lot to what I think this session will be going towards, which is thinking about a movement or an action plan amongst us, and how do we start? And I think Nodumo mentioned a few things, like thinking about addressing the issue holistically, but at the same time, being able to reach the grassroots. Each of us then can play a part because we are part of a community locally. So I thought to seed those couple of thoughts first, and let’s go into the next segment for this session, which is, do we have any questions for the speakers or any comments or thoughts about what we’ve discussed so far? Please, over to the mic. Hi, good afternoon.

Audience:
My name is Elisa Hever, and I’m from the Dutch government, from the Ministry of Economic Affairs, and a MAG member. So universal acceptance, or IDNs, is not something new. It’s been there for quite some time. And, well, I’ve been in this field for three years, so slightly longer than that we know about IDNs. And I’ve been hearing, actually, from basically day one, IDNs is an important topic. It’s a very important topic. It’s important. We need this. It’s important. It’s highly important. We really need this. And it doesn’t seem that there’s really, a big change happening up until now, at least. I do feel that we’re getting somewhere, even though there have been resolutions already in the ITU on this for quite some time. And I’m wondering how you really think that we as governments also should act on ensuring or creating more, well, how should I say this? Sorry, I’m slightly tired after a week of IGF. So what role you see for governments in this process? And which role you see for the technical, no, sorry, for the business community? Because I’m seeing ICANN here, and they are, well, more from the technical community, and also the example given about Google or Gmail and not really being instrumental in this. I wonder which role you see for that sector. Thank you.

Moderator:
Thank you for the question. I think there are two parts to your question, so I will try to dissect it for the speakers. I heard Mariela was going to leave early. Is she still on? She’s left? Because I think one part of the question was, how can governments help in terms of the policy aspect? Mariela would be very good to address that. If that’s the case, can I first ask Edmund, then Teresa?

Edmon Chung:
The question is how much time we have, right? We can talk about this for hours. You talk about three years. Actually, I’ve been working on this for 25 years, and it is improving. What I would like to say, a few things. First, why is it important, why is it not done? Yes, it’s also because of the technical and the policy requirements, so we’re still working through the technology and the policies to make it work. We are very close to completing that, as Teresa will I’m sure add. So now is the time, is really in my view. And I think there is also the issue of the suppliers that provide… IDN registrations, for example, is not seeing the demand. And that is a problem. And why didn’t they see the demand? Well, one of the reasons is because universal acceptance is not ready yet because emails are having still, different platforms are still not supporting it. Web hosting remains a problem. So that is why we need policy intervention. That’s why we need to break this chicken and egg issue. So what governments should do? I think governments should look at ICANN. What ICANN did was a few years ago, and that, in my view, was a significant change. ICANN, for the first 20 years, have been supporting but not really doing it themselves. But since, I think it was 2015, around that time, ICANN had a universal acceptance program and it’s starting to look at its own internal systems and make it ready. And that was a big thing. I think the next step needs to be, registries and registrars need to be completely universal acceptance ready. And if I can wave a wand and the GNSO would do everything, I would ask for registries and registrars to be required to be universal acceptance ready, me being one of the registries as well. And I know it’s very difficult. It’s actually difficult because it is a bit of a long tail. The reason why it’s difficult is because some of the systems that use, every part of the system you use touches on domain names and email addresses. And therefore, the actual change is small, but the long tail thing is, the long tail is pretty long. So governments look to ICANN, the tendering process, all the IT systems that governments use, maybe you can’t ask for them to be completely universal acceptance ready, but what you can ask for is a roadmap, right? You can ask for in your tenders is to ask the question, are you universal acceptance ready? If not, what is the plan to become universal acceptance ready? I mean, that’s the one big thing. Second big thing, I think, which I mentioned earlier as well, is about the education side. The curriculum needs to be updated. When students are taught Networking 101, internationalized domain names and email addresses should be the basic protocol, not an add-on. So I think at least those are two immediate things. And of course, the government systems themselves to become universal acceptance ready. Hopefully that’s useful.

Theresa Swinehart:
I think Edmund really identified some really core actions we’d seen with government contracts in relation to IPv6 that had been successful, or at least created awareness around it and encouraged businesses from that standpoint. I think on the local community side and the education side, encouraging the generation of local content and awareness that one could actually do local content then. So I think there’s quite a bit there through both the economic and the social areas within the governments. And then also with activities in some of the partner organizations. We heard from UNESCO and others around the need for this and the value of that. I think that we often hear at the national level the preservation of culture, the preservation of languages, linking that to the digital world and the opportunities that are there from a government standpoint. I think from a business standpoint as well, there’s always the argument of, is there the demand? Well, if one’s not providing it, one doesn’t know if there’s a demand. And there might be ways to create consumer awareness, to know to ask for it and to know to say, I would like to actually be able to have this resolved in that right way because one can create the mechanism and the technology for it. And as Edmund said, we’re still developing some of the policies and ironing out some of the different areas in the trainings. But there’s the overarching awareness that one actually can have something in one’s own language, just like one can have the ask for clean air or clean water. It’s not a utility from that standpoint, but it is something that is near and dear to every single individual in how they communicate with each other. So I think some of those angles.

Moderator:
Thank you. We have more questions or comments from the floor. Let’s go to the next gentleman. Thank you.

Audience:
Hi, my name is Keisuke Kamimura, professor of linguistics and Japanese at Daito Bunka University in Tokyo. And I attended a workshop on artificial intelligence this morning. And one of the speakers mentioned that artificial intelligence needs large chunk of language-based data. Otherwise, AI does not learn by themselves. So language-based data for lesser used languages or minority languages should be available before making artificial intelligence becoming meaningful for them. Is this kind of issue related to this panel or is it going to be dealt with somewhere else or somebody else?

Edmon Chung:
Well, I think it’s very relevant, actually, when one of the things that I mentioned is that today on the web, 57% of the content is still in English. So even for general AI, it is English-dominant. So the machine would have learned that English is the dominant language as well. So I think it is a matter that is important to address. Although I’m certainly not an expert on that, but I do know that, given that, we know that there is a bias with the AI and in that part, I do participate in the IEEE working group on algorithmic bias. But back to the topic here, I guess the relevance, I believe, is that internationalized domain names and email addresses can spark the creation of content and services in the different languages, whether it’s indigenous languages or different languages. And the reason why I like to use this, remind people of one interesting fact of the internet development, the DNS, the domain name system, was created in 1983. Six years later, the web was invented in 1989. The basic infrastructure needs to be there. The basic foundations of the domain name and email addressing system needs to be there for the content layer to flourish. And I think this is gonna be true for IDNs as well. Thank you.

Moderator:
Can I do a quick segue? I know there is a queue, but I think do a quick segue to Mark. Because when we were preparing for the session, we talked about working with open source community on standards and guidelines. I think ties in back to the question from the professor about availability of data in terms of languages. So I thought, Mark, maybe we can segue a quick one to you about in terms of relevance for AI on the one hand, but really working with the open source community, is there anything we can do to get this topic and going to raise awareness and to get people to adopt?

Mark Durdin:
Yeah, thank you. I think it’s very interesting hearing a lot of this discussion, and I’m really resonating with a lot of what the other panel speakers are saying and Edmund and Ndomo. And one thing I’d like to note is that the Unico Consortium, which kind of works at a slightly different level to ICANN, the Unico Consortium has launched the Digitally Disadvantaged Languages Subcommittee, and that’s a mouthful. But the DDL subcommittee has just been launched, and it’s a real opportunity for us to engage with industry partners because the Unico Consortium is a consortium of major industry vendors working in internationalization. And so there’s a real awareness right now coming out of the international decade of indigenous languages. So let’s make sure that we are engaging at that level there. And that correlates with the perception in my part of the tech space that ICANN is very low level. You sort of deal with all of these nuts and bolts at a level where normal software developers don’t need to think about it. And so I think for that reason, for many software developers, universal acceptance and IDN, it’s not even on their radar, just because it’s like, oh, it’s all low level stuff, somebody else has already dealt with it. So I think some level of promotion in an accessible space is the kind of thing that the W3C has done very well with a lot of their standards for the web. But doing some of that kind of thing with clear accessible FAQs around UA and what needs to be done and the gaps is a really good starting spot because I’ve been doing this for a while, but I haven’t actually found a one-stop shop where I can point people to, which is accessible. There’s lots of very detailed documentation, but nothing that really says, well, this is the problem, here’s your normal questions. So in terms of engaging with the open source community, that’s a really good starting spot. I’d be really good, I remember in the UA report from 2022, that there was a big list of major products and their level of support. It’d be good to do the same sort of thing with some of the low level libraries that really power the internet, things like Curl and OpenSSL, Node and PHP and even WordPress and just have a look at how well do these products support universal acceptance and where are their gaps. And even then going through to the other end of the space, looking at end user software, things like Firefox and Thunderbird. These are places where we have the opportunity to make improvements and submit changes to those communities and support them without needing to wait for commercial priorities necessarily. And that often then drives the commercial vendors to go, oh, we need to actually match that functionality. So it’s just another prong in the strategy.

Moderator:
Thank you, Mark. So, yeah. Appreciate that. Okay, we have a queue, so let’s try to move. So let’s go to the next gentleman, please.

Audience:
My name is Yudo, for the record. I’m from Indonesia. Serve as a board member, one of the board member of .id Registry Pandi and also working as a professor at Faculty of Computer Science, Universitas Indonesia. Indonesia, I’m coming from a country with more than 700 languages. Out of those 700 languages, we have identified more than 30 of them and actually use a non-Latin script. One of the language that spoken by many people in Indonesia is actually Japanese language, spoken by 60 million people in Indonesia. And we also have Balinese language. Everyone knows Bali. And the language is spoken by more than 3 million people in Indonesia, mostly in Bali. So, three years ago, we submit an IDN application, international domain name to ICANN. And the motive or the background of it is simply to serve the underserved community, to preserve the indigenous language and also to give universal access to them. Unfortunately, it was rejected by ICANN. As Teresa mentioned, there are several requirements, technical and also political. Now, I mentioned two of the political requirements mentioned in the document. Number one is that the panel, you know that ICANN simply just give it to the expert panel and then they will review the application. They mentioned that the Japanese language is written today only in Latin-based characters except for scholarly, historical and decorative purposes. And then there are also requirements that mention that the language must be used as an official communication of the relevant public authority and also serve as a language of administration. So, if you look at those two requirements, it’s like chicken and egg. I mean, if the language is actually served as the language of administration as used by the public authority and commonly used, then it is actually not an underserved community in my point of view. So, we think that by providing the IDN for Japanese, Balinese, then the people will have a room to play digitally because for non-digital work, I think UNESCO and my government and also Dutch government, if you mentioned University of Leiden actually has done lots of work for our manuscript. So, to make us happy, we are actually currently intensively communicate with ICANN, with Professor Sarmat and also PTNAN to develop the label generation role for the Japanese, Balinese and Pagan. But with those two requirements, because in Indonesia actually since 1928, we have an oath that we will use Bahasa Indonesia as the national language, but we still have those more than 700 indigenous language. So, we are not like India who actually they put most of the languages in their constitution. So, we just actually support very much when India is actually apply for the IDN. So, as long as we still have the requirements, I don’t think ICANN is actually very serious in the inclusivity, underserved community for the people who actually they don’t speak English or they don’t use common language like Japanese, Korean and also Chinese.

Moderator:
Thank you. Thank you. Before we go to Teresa to address it, because we only have three minutes, let’s not leave anyone behind. Let’s go for the question from on remote as well. Then let’s try to use the remaining time to wrap up. Yeah.

Audience:
So, this is a question from Amit Paria. How would the private sector be motivated to develop tech with language inclusivity as their priority? Okay, this one, would Mark or Emma want to take it? Hold on first, then we get the lady over there, please. Thank you. Thank you, panel. First of all, congratulations to anybody who is working tirelessly to improve access to languages digitally. Both AI and automated speech recognition. But at the same time, a plea. My name is Lydia Best and I am from the European Federation of Hard of Hearing People. And many of you know that I am a deaf person. And many of us rely on sometimes auto-captioning services. And the plea is, can you please make sure that we actually don’t get censors? Because often auto-captioning censors language. What hearing people can hear, we don’t, especially swear words. We also want to know if somebody was swearing. Thank you.

Moderator:
Thank you. All right, we have two minutes, maybe one minute for Teresa to view those question. And then maybe Emma can do a quick one for the remote participant. Thank you.

Theresa Swinehart:
Yes, and we can also follow up offline on this. But my understanding is that, I was just checking with a colleague, that we are working with the Javanese community to develop the LGR. And I believe you’re part of all of that work. And that one of the areas is that the Unicode categorizes the Javanese as a limited use language. But we’ve also requested to start working with a Unicode listed as a recommended script identifier. So hopefully that work will continue to bring progress to this issue, of course. And that will also help us with the process for new applications. So rest assured, work is underway as we’re trying to resolve the different areas. And we look forward to your continuing efforts on that. So thank you.

Edmon Chung:
I guess I will quickly add to that as well. We’ll very much encourage you to bring this up again at the ICANN public forum in Hamburg. But two things quickly, the IDNCC PDP, the policy development process is actually still ongoing and is addressing some of the issues that you’re saying. The second thing is, maybe we should ask ICANN to revisit the label generation process in light of the international decade of indigenous language. And if we embrace that, that would work well. In response to the question on the private sector incentive, I think we’re looking at an issue of market failure and therefore just relying on market forces is not gonna work, especially when you’re talking about indigenous languages and supporting universal acceptance that have a very long tail. So in that sense, then it really requires policy intervention and it’s either motivation as in giving you money to actually get it done, or the other way is a kind of quote unquote penalty or requirement, which is what I mentioned earlier, requirement in tenders. So I think those types of policy intervention would be useful.

Moderator:
Thank you. All right, we’ve run out of time, but this has been very engaging in terms of the discussion and very insightful comments from our speakers on the panel. And to wrap up, I’d like to ask everyone just to give it a think in terms of inclusion for multilingual internet. Let’s say if you are more of a technical person like Mark, if you come across a website that doesn’t accept domain names or emails in other scripts, what can we do to raise awareness about it to let the software developer or the company know that they should fix it? This will help to generate awareness. And also let’s say you are from a academic institution, we have professors here, students here, also Nodumo who shared, how can we include in the curriculum for our students to know about this space so that we can be more inclusive? Even for end users, you know, are there websites or software that you use day to day? And have you thought whether they can accept domain names or emails in other scripts? Let’s think about it. And perhaps the next time we come back, we can share some progress instead of just saying that it’s very important, very important, but perhaps next year when we come back, we can actually share some progress we’ve made together one step at a time. So with that, we’ll close for today’s session. Thank you so much for participating and help me thank my speakers. Thank you.

Dhruv Dhody

In a series of discussions, Dhruv Dhody and the IAB outreach coordinator emphasise the importance of increasing participation and diversity in the ITF (Internet Technical Foundation). Dhruv Dhody specifically focuses on the need for more participation from India, particularly from multinational corporations and large network operators. His experience in implementing and designing Request for Comments (RFCs) has made him aware of the potential that India holds in contributing to the ITF. With the support of individuals like Suresh, Dhruv and others have been diligently working to encourage and enhance participation from India.

On the other hand, the IAB outreach coordinator discusses the various efforts being made to improve access to the ITF and increase diversity. They highlight the role of education and outreach in achieving these goals. As part of the ITF’s education and outreach team, the coordinator focuses on making it easier and more successful for women and individuals of diverse genders to participate. Their efforts have resulted in positive changes within the ITF since their involvement began around 2010.

The discussions indicate a positive sentiment towards increasing participation and diversity within the ITF. It is evident that both Dhruv Dhody and the IAB outreach coordinator recognise the significance of broadening the participation base and promoting inclusivity within the ITF community. By encouraging multinational corporations, large network operators, and individuals from underrepresented groups to actively engage and contribute their expertise, the ITF can benefit from a diverse range of perspectives and ideas.

Overall, the detailed analyses of Dhruv Dhody and the IAB outreach coordinator shed light on the ongoing efforts to create a more inclusive and diverse ITF. Their observations and insights emphasize the positive changes observed since their involvement began in 2010. These discussions serve as a call to action for increased participation from India and a concerted effort towards improving diversity within the ITF.

Colin Perkins

Colin Perkins, an esteemed member of the University of Glasgow, is highly involved in the Internet Research Task Force (IRTF), where he serves as chair. He has actively contributed to both the IRTF and the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) since the 1990s and has successfully led various IETF working groups.

The IRTF plays a crucial role in conducting long-term research, complementing the near-term standards work performed by the IETF. Perkins, as the chair of the IRTF, acts as a bridge between the research community and the standards development community within the IETF, facilitating coordination and collaboration between the two.

Perkins values his role in coordinating research and standards communities, considering it an essential aspect of his work within the IRTF. He believes that such collaboration is pivotal in driving innovation and growth within the industry.

One notable outcome of the collaboration between the IETF and the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) is the development of the next version of the web transport protocol, known as HTTP3. This significant advancement in web technology was accomplished through joint efforts. Furthermore, the collaboration between the IETF and the W3C has also led to the creation of the WebRTC protocols for facilitating video conferencing.

Throughout his involvement in the community, Perkins has had a positive experience, finding the process to be remarkably straightforward. This observation highlights the effectiveness of the community in fostering a conducive and efficient environment for collaboration and development.

In conclusion, Colin Perkins, a highly regarded member of the University of Glasgow, serves as the chair of the IRTF. His active involvement in the IRTF and IETF, along with his expertise in coordinating research and standards communities, contributes to the advancement of long-term research and the development of standards within the industry. The collaboration between the IETF and the W3C has yielded significant results, such as the HTTP3 protocol and the WebRTC protocols. Perkins’ positive experience in the community further reflects the efficacy of the collaborative process.

Suresh Krishnan

Suresh Krishnan’s work on IPv6 is driven by his goal to bridge the digital divide between developing and developed countries. In the late 90s and early 2000s, it became evident that developing countries, such as India and China, lagged behind developed countries in IP address allocation. This discrepancy posed a significant challenge for these countries in terms of equal access to technology and communication.

IPv6 emerged as a new technology that was seen as a solution to this problem. It provided a much larger number of IP addresses compared to the limited supply of IPv4 addresses. By implementing IPv6, developing countries could access a larger pool of addresses, enabling them to expand their connectivity and reduce the digital divide. Recognizing the potential of IPv6, Krishnan dedicated his efforts to advancing this technology, with the aim of creating a more equitable digital landscape.

Krishnan is actively involved in the IETF community, which is known for its open and supportive approach. The community has made significant progress in promoting inclusivity in participation and collaboration, which plays a crucial role in addressing challenges and finding effective solutions. The IETF facilitates remote participation, allowing individuals who are unable to attend meetings in person to engage and contribute to discussions. Financial waivers are provided to those facing financial constraints, ensuring equal opportunities for participation. The community has also made provisions for childcare at meetings, demonstrating their commitment to supporting young parents and promoting inclusivity.

Krishnan emphasizes the importance of inclusivity in problem-solving through collaboration. Inclusivity ensures that diverse perspectives and ideas are considered, leading to more comprehensive and innovative solutions. His advocacy for inclusivity aligns with the belief that collective intelligence and diverse experiences contribute to more effective problem-solving.

The multi-stakeholder approach, which involves engaging various stakeholders such as governments, civil society organizations, and the private sector, has proven successful in problem-solving. The experience of the IETF community highlights the effectiveness of this approach in leveraging expertise, fostering cooperation, and achieving common goals.

In conclusion, Suresh Krishnan’s work in IPv6 focuses on reducing the digital divide between developing and developed countries. The IETF community promotes a supportive and inclusive environment, encouraging collaboration and inclusivity in problem-solving. The multi-stakeholder approach holds great potential for driving future development through collective efforts and diverse perspectives.

Lars Eggert

The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) is highly regarded for its open and inclusive platform that enables individuals to participate and contribute to improving internet protocols. This open participation model does not require a membership fee or any formal sign-up process, making it accessible to anyone interested in contributing to the development of the internet.

One example of the positive experiences individuals have had with the IETF is shared by Lars Eggert, who joined as a PhD student and contributed to the improvement of the TCP protocol. This highlights the opportunity for young researchers to get involved and make a meaningful impact on internet protocols.

Protocols such as IP, DNS, and TCP have been continuously evolving over the years. Despite carrying most of the bytes on the internet, these protocols have undergone significant changes since their inception. It is worth noting that despite sharing the same name, these protocols are vastly different than they were in the past.

The IETF’s unique process of designing technical specifications plays a crucial role in the development and maintenance of the internet. This process, which closely resembles maintaining an aeroplane in flight, has been in place since the inception of the internet. Discussions and developments within the IETF occur in a collaborative manner, allowing for the continuous improvement of internet protocols.

The IETF also shows a strong commitment to enhancing internet security and privacy protections. Two years ago, they published version 1.3 of the Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol, which added significant security and privacy measures. This effort was intensified following the revelations made by Edward Snowden, which prompted additional work towards strengthening the security of the internet.

A notable development in internet traffic has been the introduction of QUIC (Quick UDP Internet Connections) with HTTP 3 and TLS 1.3. This combination has dramatically transformed the model of internet traffic. In fact, it is estimated that QUIC with HTTP 3 and TLS 1.3 already accounts for close to half of all web traffic. This serves as further evidence of the IETF’s ability to drive significant changes in the internet landscape.

The IETF has also taken steps to address the problem of stalking through devices like AirTags. They have initiated a Birds of a Feather session (DALT) to discuss this issue. Moreover, major device vendors have come together at the IETF to standardise measures and find solutions to prevent stalking incidents.

Overall, the IETF acts as a suitable platform for standardising measures for device tracking. It embraces an open and inclusive approach, allowing everyone to participate and contribute without any membership fees or restrictions. The clear rules established by the IETF ensure that the working process is understood by all participants.

In conclusion, the IETF’s open platform, dedication to evolving internet protocols, unique process of designing technical specifications, commitment to security and privacy, ability to drive change, and efforts to address emerging challenges make it a crucial institution for the development and maintenance of the internet.

Andrew Alston

Andrew Alston, one of the three routing area directors in the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), highlights the importance of increased operator participation in the IETF. He firmly believes that operators must actively engage and contribute to ensure that the internet functions in a way that benefits them. Alston acknowledges the critical role that operators play in maintaining and improving internet infrastructure, and their expertise is invaluable in shaping internet standards and protocols.

Additionally, Alston advocates for greater African representation and participation within the IETF. As a representative of Kenya in the IETF and the head of the Research and Development department for Liquid Telecom in Kenya, he emphasizes the significant discrepancy between Africa’s population of 1.2 billion people and its limited representation in the global internet standards body. Alston sees the IETF as a platform to address the unique needs and challenges of the African continent regarding internet protocols and standards. By encouraging increased African involvement, he aims to ensure that the development and governance of the internet are inclusive and responsive to the African perspective.

According to Alston, the IETF welcomes participation from operators, vendors, and governments, making it an open community. He believes that the IETF’s strength lies in its ability to bring together diverse perspectives and cultures, contributing to better decision-making and more robust internet standards. Alston recognizes the importance of a multi-stakeholder model in achieving these goals and acknowledges the IETF’s commitment to diversity.

However, Alston acknowledges that the IETF could do better in terms of diversity and inclusivity. While the organization embraces diversity as a core principle, there is still room for improvement. Alston’s admission reflects an understanding of the ongoing challenges faced by the IETF in ensuring equitable and inclusive representation.

In conclusion, Andrew Alston, as a routing area director in the IETF, advocates for increased operator participation and greater representation from Africa in the internet standards body. He emphasizes the crucial role of operators in shaping the internet and highlights the unique needs of the African continent. Additionally, Alston recognizes the IETF’s commitment to diversity but also acknowledges the need for further improvement in this area. His insights shed light on the importance of inclusivity and diversity in internet governance and the ongoing efforts to achieve these goals within the IETF.

Jane Coffin

The analysis reveals that the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) has limited representation of the technical community, as highlighted by audience comments. Efforts are being made, however, to address this issue. It is predicted that there will be increased participation from the technical community in the future.

Jane Coffin, in agreement with the audience’s observation about the lack of representation, indicates efforts to remedy this. She acknowledges that there was more participation from the technical community in the early years of the IGF. Coffin also points out that the IETF, IEB, and RERTF were present at the session, indicating some level of technical community involvement. She predicts that there will be even more participation in the future.

Furthermore, Coffin emphasizes the need for more valuable input on technical aspects in the IGF discussions. Specifically, she mentions internet exchange points, BGP, and IP addressing as areas where more input could provide valuable contributions to the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG). She advocates for bringing back a past practice of focusing on these technical aspects.

In addition to technical input, Coffin appreciates the potential of the Internet Society (ISOC) and recommends its Japanese chapter for potential workshops. She used to work at ISOC and believes they have strong potential in helping with workshops.

Moreover, Coffin encourages engagement with the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) and the Internet Architecture Board (IAB). She expresses gratitude and encourages the audience to stay in touch with these technical bodies, highlighting their importance in the context of networking, digital cooperation, and sustainable development.

Overall, the analysis indicates the need for increased representation of the technical community in the IGF. Coffin’s arguments and recommendations provide valuable insights into how this can be achieved, including the focus on technical aspects and collaboration with relevant technical organizations. It is crucial for the IGF to involve the technical community to ensure comprehensive discussions and effective decision-making on internet governance issues.

Audience

During the event, speakers highlighted several key points. One major concern raised was the lack of diversity in standards bodies, with limited participation from women, civil society organizations, governments, end users, and the tech sector. Only around 10% of participation in the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) is from women, indicating a significant problem. This lack of diversity can have negative consequences for both the standards themselves and the broader industry.

On a positive note, it was argued that diversity is crucial for improving organizational culture and the quality of output. A diverse range of perspectives and experiences leads to more innovative and inclusive solutions. The importance of diversity in achieving the Sustainable Development Goal of reducing inequalities (SDG10) was also emphasized.

The existence of unintentional barriers hindering diversity in standards bodies was also discussed. These barriers affect both entry and ongoing participation, making it difficult for certain groups to get involved. Identifying and addressing these barriers is essential for promoting diversity and ensuring equal participation.

There is also a need to extend web standards to rural communities and remote locations, as highlighted by a question from a worker in a rural area of Bangalore, India. The speaker argued that web standards should go beyond urban areas and be accessible to everyone, including those in underserved areas. This aligns with SDG9, which focuses on industry, innovation, and infrastructure.

The positive impact of the IETF was recognized, particularly in the area of privacy. Danko Jevtovic, a member of the ICANN board, commended the IETF’s work on privacy standards. The open and free standards of the IETF, based on Internet Protocol (IP), were also praised as a successful strategy against closed systems.

However, there was concern over the lack of representation of the technical community in the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). It was argued that the technical community should have more involvement in the IGF to ensure balanced representation and better decision-making.

The challenges of transitioning from legacy technology and protocols to newer ones were also discussed. It was pointed out that some government systems, like those in Japan, still use outdated protocols such as FTP. While there is recognition of the need to move away from legacy technology, there are challenges that need to be addressed for a smooth transition.

Finally, the audience expressed the need for longer sessions and workshops to allow for more in-depth discussions and learning. While Jane Coffin’s moderation was appreciated, it was felt that more time was needed to fully explore the topics. Additionally, a preference for on-site work was mentioned, indicating a desire for physical presence and collaboration.

In conclusion, the analysis revealed various challenges and opportunities in the field of standards bodies and internet governance. The lack of diversity, unintentional barriers, the need to extend web standards, and the importance of the technical community’s representation were key concerns. On a positive note, the impact and effectiveness of the IETF’s work, as well as the benefits of diversity in organizational culture and quality of work, were highlighted. The event provided valuable insights and called for actions to promote diversity, address barriers, and ensure wider participation in shaping internet standards and policies.

Mallory Knodel

Mallory Knodel, a professional associated with the Centre for Democracy and Technology, actively participates in various technical communities and organisations. She serves on the Internet Architecture Board (IAB), alongside Dhruv Dhody and Suresh Krishnan, where she chairs a research group on human rights and collaborates with Suresh on a working group. Her work demonstrates a commitment to evolving and promoting ethical practices within the field.

Mallory’s involvement in the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) began almost a decade ago when she worked at the Association for Progressive Communications (APC). During her time at APC, Mallory discovered interesting and useful experiences within smaller tech communities, such as independent or NGO-operated community networks and web or email hosting. Recognising the value of these experiences, she strives to incorporate them into larger standards bodies.

In addition to her work with community networks, Mallory has expertise in digital security and journalism. She has conducted training sessions for journalists and activists, equipping them with crucial skills in digital security. Mallory acknowledges the challenges of teaching advanced concepts like PGP encrypted email but believes that by changing the Internet at the IETF level, it is possible to better serve individuals in vulnerable situations.

Furthermore, Mallory recognises the need to extend web standards to rural communities. While the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) primarily establishes web standards, there is some overlap between the work of W3C and IETF. Mallory’s organization actively promotes diverse web standards, emphasizing the importance of catering to the needs of different communities.

In terms of Internet governance, Mallory sees an opportunity for the W3C to contribute to the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). Unlike the IGF, which primarily focuses on policy matters, the technical communities represented by organizations like the W3C can bridge the gap between policy and technical aspects. Currently, the W3C has limited presence at IGF, but their participation could significantly enhance the forum’s effectiveness.

Additionally, Mallory notes a decline in participation within technical institutions over the years. She agrees with Jane Coffin’s observation regarding the decreasing attendance at sessions held by organizations such as the IETF, IEB, and RERTF compared to a decade ago. Mallory and other members of the technical community are making concerted efforts to restore participation levels to their former heights, demonstrating a shared commitment to fostering a thriving technical landscape.

In conclusion, Mallory Knodel’s contributions and experiences within various technical communities and organizations encompass a wide range of significant areas. From her involvement with the IAB and efforts to incorporate smaller tech experiences into larger standards bodies, to her training of journalists and activists in digital security, and her recognition of the importance of extending web standards to rural communities, Mallory consistently exhibits dedication to promoting ethical practices and inclusivity within the rapidly evolving technological landscape.

Mirja Kühlewind

The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) is an influential organisation that drives internet standards. They focus on creating high-quality, industry-wide standards to promote interoperability. The success of the IETF is measured by the voluntary deployment of their protocols.

The IETF’s decision-making process, based on “rough consensus,” ensures that decisions are made by the community. This inclusive approach allows for progress even amidst differing opinions and concerns.

The openness of the IETF is crucial to its impact. They keep barriers low to encourage participation and promote transparency. This fosters collaboration and knowledge exchange.

However, engaging with the IETF can be overwhelming due to the complexity of information and tasks involved. It is a dynamic platform for knowledgeable individuals, but newcomers may find it challenging.

The IETF values diversity to ensure quality standards. They strive for inclusivity, recognising that not everyone has the same resources to participate. The freely accessible standards enable anyone to enhance them.

The IETF actively reaches out to policy stakeholders, explaining their work and establishing dialogue. They recognise the importance of updating old protocols to maintain internet health and security.

In conclusion, the IETF is an influential organisation driving internet standards. Their commitment to high-quality standards, inclusive decision-making, and knowledge sharing make them a dynamic platform. While engaging with the IETF may be challenging, their focus on accessibility and inclusivity ensures the continued development of internet standards.

Mirja Kühlewind:
IETF, the Internet Engineering Task Force, and we would like to talk about the importance of interoperability and the multi-stakeholder model of the IETF. My name is Mirja Kühlewind. I’m the chair of the IAB, the Internet Architecture Board, one of the two leadership groups in the IETF. I will quickly, and this is why you’re seeing some slides in front here, I will quickly go through like a handful of slides and give you some kind of the most important things about how the IETF works, a little bit also what we’re doing, but on a very high level. And then afterwards, we will have a little panel. We brought some of our leadership members here, so Colin, the IRTF chair, and Mallory is also an IAB member, and we have four more leadership members online. Lars Eckert, the IETF chair, who unfortunately couldn’t come here in person, then Suresh, another IAB member, Suresh Krishnan, then Andrew Alston, the routing AD, and Dhruv Dhodi, another IAB member. However, they will also introduce themselves during the panel, and I will just quickly run through the slides, and then I will hand over the discussion to Jane Coffin, who’s moderating the panel, and I hope at the end we have a lot of time for you to ask questions. Okay, so this is also just, you see us here in person, but you know, so you can actually see the names and some of the acronyms I just mentioned, and I will explain these acronyms a little bit in the next couple of slides. Again, I’m the chair of the Internet Architecture Board, Colin, the IRTF chair, and Mallory, an IAB member, and this one is probably more important if you’re not locked into Zoom, and so you also see the faces of the people online. Lars Eckert, the IETF chair in Finland at the moment, I think, early morning. Andrew Alston, our routing AD from Kenya. Dhruv Dhodi is based in India, and Suresh Krishnan from the US. So this is a short slide which, however, has like some of the important messages about how the IETF works. So very important point about the IETF is openness. Everybody can participate, and I think we try to be really as open as possible, so we don’t have membership feeds. Like, everybody can just subscribe to any mailing list and enter the discussion at any point of time. Anybody can come to a meeting. We have good online support for our meeting, and this openness is kind of in the heart not only of our organization, but it’s also something that is reflected on the Internet, because that is really one of the goals of the Internet, and we try to run the organization in the same way. And openness also means not only everybody would be able to participate, because there’s no, like, we try to keep barriers for participation as low as possible. It also means that the things we are producing, the standards, the protocols, are free for use. So there’s no fee for, like, accessing our documents. They are all online, and, like, again, this is like the spirit of the Internet, where you just need to, like, implement a standard, and then you are in the Internet and you can participate, and that’s also, I think, what has driven the success of the Internet. Another thing to notice is really that we are a very technical organization. Our meetings are focused around solving technical problems, sometimes very, very detailed, and what we’re trying to do is to make good judgment on the technical level, and that’s also why we can drive a consensus-driven process, because in a lot of cases you can actually come to compromise on the technical level and move forward. Of course, not everything we discuss in the ITF is only technical. There are implications that we need to be aware of, but our focus is really on doing good technical work that then gets adopted by companies because they get a value out of it and it improves the Internet. And that’s the other point. We are actually measuring our success. Did we do a good job based on, kind of, the voluntary deployment of our protocols? We cannot directly tell anybody to use our protocols or to, like, do a certain thing, but what we’re trying to do is to do good technical work to make the protocols as reliable and secure as we can in order that they actually address the needs people have and they get deployed because they are good and they improve the Internet. This is the slide where I very quickly explain some of the acronyms I already mentioned. So the IETF has actually two leadership groups. One is the Internet Engineering Steering Group and the IETF chair, Lars Ecker, is chairing that group. And this is a group that is looking at the actual standard process. So they approve and review all standard documents, they manage the working groups, the meetings, and their goal is really to make the standards process as good and as productive as possible. And the other leadership group is the Internet Architecture Board. And the Internet Architecture Board has also some kind of admin roles. There are little things we need to care about. But as the name said, there’s also a point about architectural oversight and what that means is that we’re trying to look at the work that’s happening in the IETF at a more higher level. We’re trying to understand are there any gaps that are important in order to follow the principles that the Internet is built on? Is there a discussion that doesn’t have enough attention that we need to drive forward because there’s an issue? And these kind of things. And then at the same time, we also do outreach and liaison management. So we are basically the Office of Foreign Affairs of the IETF, if you want to put it that way. And so we try to talk to other SDOs whenever there’s an overlap. But we also, and that’s also why we’re here, we’re trying to look what happens in the rest of the world. What are the important topics that we need to consider and that may impact the Internet and our standards work? And then I also would like to mention the IRTF. So this is the sister organization of the IETF. It’s the Internet Research Task Force. They have a very similar structure. They also have research groups. They have different processes. But they are in a sense integrated in the IETF that like we meet together in a common meeting. It’s all integrated and it’s very useful for two things. First, they look at the more long-term things. They look at the things that are not ready for standardization yet. They look at the things where we see a trend that we need to keep an eye on. And it’s also good for actually providing more diverse input. So this is a way to get researchers into the IETF and get an exchange between engineers, researchers and all the stakeholders and have a discussion. So I can just say from my own perspective, I’ve started as a researcher in the IETF and I could always provide some more neutral, different kind of input and was well received in the discussion. So I think this is a very strong point about the IETF. To give you a little bit of an idea, you know, like how big the IETF is, just a couple of numbers here and like you can mostly read them yourself. We currently have 130 working groups. This is changing a little bit more or less. Like for example, last year we created eight new working groups. We are closing some. We have some long-standing working groups that are there for many years but take up new work all the time. So there’s a lot of happening in the IETF. We are reaching the mark where we have nearly 10,000 RFCs. RFCs are our standard documents. But also RFC 1 goes back before the internet and before the IETF. So at the moment, or last year, we published nearly 200 new standards documents or documents that went through the standardization process. The participation numbers, you know, actually depends on like kind of how you define participation because there might be people who are only on mailing lists. There might be people who come only to some of the meetings or all of the meetings. People who write documents and whatever. And as we don’t have a membership, we cannot give you like this one number. So depending on how you look at this, it’s a couple of thousand people. There’s a lot of people who engage in discussions and who come to meetings to understand what we’re doing who might not be active authors or active, very active in the discussion. So, you know, it’s the people who probably write the standards are in the range of whatever, two to three thousand, something. I don’t know. You can read the numbers here and make your own conclusions. Okay, this one, this slide is a little bit crowded and I hope you can at least read some of it. But the reason why it’s crowded is because it has like a bunch of acronyms on it and I won’t explain all of them. I might not even be able to explain all of them and you don’t have to map all of them. It’s more to like give you a chance if you know some of the acronyms to figure out, you know, what the IATF, where to map it. But what you can get from this slide is that we are really working on maintaining, extending and developing the core protocols of the Internet. So we don’t do like the lower layer things. So we don’t do kind of any kind of radio or Wi-Fi or radio messaging or whatever or like Ethernet cable standards and so on. And what we also don’t do is like the very up layer, the application layer, the web itself or the things where like the user actually interacts very concretely with an application. But kind of everything in between. So and this is also how we organize ourself. We organized ourself a little bit in these layers to make sure we can we can coordinate correctly. And so we have the application layer where you have, for example, HTTP protocol. That’s what your browser is using. But also the protocols that are used for video conferencing. We have the transport. We have the routing. We have the Internet area. So this is where IPv4 and IPv6 lives and get further developed. But also DNS, for example. A lot of the infrastructure stuff. And then we have two more important areas. We have an operation management area. And that area is also working on protocols to manage the routers on the Internet, the devices on the Internet. But it also provides guidance and best practices about all the other protocols when you deploy them. So that’s why it’s shown here on the side. And then, of course, there’s security. And security is not a layer. Security is a function that you need everywhere. And you need to consider everywhere. So that is a very important part. And the people in security area are very busy. Okay. I have two more slides. This one is also just to give you a grasp about what the IAB is doing. The Internet Architecture Board. And as I said, we’re trying to figure out what are more kind of high layer topics that might impact. And this is just a list of topics that we’ve been discussing over the last whatever one or two years. There are also some references if you want to see some of the outputs. Not all of the discussion actually to documents or actions. But it leads to awareness. And you can see that like some of these topics here do map to discussions you have in this forum. Like fragmentation, censorship, security, of course. And then governance on the slide as well. So we’re trying to engage with these discussions and understand and create awareness about these discussions. But I also would like to note that I think when we discuss this topic in the IETF, it’s a different discussion than here. Because we really try to understand how does it impact our protocols? How does it impact the technology? Or the other way around, how does technology impact these topics? And how does it impact the internet architecture? And this is this is my last slide. But I really wanted to talk about this point a little bit more. Because it’s very important. And it’s openness. I was mentioning this at the beginning. And when I talk about openness, it’s really two things. It’s the openness of our standards. They are they are available at no charge. Which really fosters deployment and adoption of the standards. And it’s really is kind of one of the keys for interoperability. And why the internet has been so successful. Because all you need to do is really to kind of confirm to the standard. Implement it. And then go and connect to the internet. And that’s why we have a global network. Because everybody relies on these standards. And we can then talk to each other and create this one big network that we call the internet. And and and again like the more of our our work gets adopted on the internet, that’s how we measure our success. And for like some of the things we are doing, we actually see very good deployment. Sometimes it’s really hard for us to measure that for us. So this is kind of also where the focus is. And then the other part is really openness about the process. And like feel free to please ask later on any kind of questions you have about both of these things. Because I think like some of the aspects of the of the IETF work actually differently than other organizations. So maybe there’s worth the discussion. So we really don’t have a membership. Everybody can come. We have three meetings a year. Of course you have to pay a fee for the meeting. Because the meeting itself has cost, right? Yeah you get you get we have the rooms and and all the things you need for a meeting. But there’s also ways to support people if they don’t have the capabilities. We we make our whole process is extremely transparent. We not only make the documents our products at the end available for free. But also all the stages in between. Everything on the mailing lists. All the meeting minutes. And we have our own too which actually has an interface where you can get a lot of statistics about what’s happening. And there’s actually a bunch of researchers who do really interesting work. But trying to figure out you know how the dynamics are. And trying to figure out and things about you know driving forces and so on. On a more objective basis. Also something that is a little bit special for the ITF is that the whole decision-making is based on rough consensus. And that means we don’t have any kind of votings. And also we don’t have it’s not like the leadership that is deciding. The role of the leadership is to judge consensus. And decisions are taken by the community. And the way the reason why we have rough consensus is because that means that we can also move forward without even if there are you know if there are still concerns. Which doesn’t mean we are ignoring the concerns. We are we are trying to discuss all the concerns. Take them into account. But then if we if we see that like we have agreement between a good set of people who also want to apply the protocol and move forward. And then at some point we have to move forward and accept this roughness. Fortunately we don’t have a lot of roughness. I mean like for some topics for sure. That’s why we have the process. But in a lot of cases we have very good consensus. Because we can get like agreement on the technical level. And that’s where I want to stop. We have the panel discussion coming up. We will go into like a little bit more into some of the aspects. And I hand over to Jane.

Jane Coffin:
Thank you Miria. My name is Jane Coffin. I’m a co-chair of GAIA which is one of the IRTF research groups. Along with

Mirja Kühlewind:
Curtis Heimerl. I’m gonna do some quick rounds of questions with all of the panelists. So it’s Lars, Andrew, Suresh, Colin, Miria, and Mallory. You each have one to two minutes to tell our guests here and the participants online. How you’ve engaged with the IETF in the past. And what are your current work areas of focus. I’m gonna start with Lars. Go to Andrew. Go to Suresh, Colin, Miria, and Mallory. So get your answers ready. Lars you’re up.

Lars Eggert:
Hi. Good morning. I hope you guys can hear me. Okay. Excellent. Hi. So my name is Lars Eckert and I chair the IETF as Miria said. Greetings from Finland. It is 7.17. I really wish I could have made it to Kyoto. I’m sorry that that wasn’t possible. I hope I’ll see you next year. I thought I’d give you sort of maybe a little bit of a personal story. So to make it a bit more sort of personal about how somebody would start in the IETF. So I was a PhD student and I worked on this thing called TCP, the transmission control protocol. You might have heard of it. It carries most of the bias on the internet still. And so we worked on it. We did research. We came up with an improvement. And the question is how do you actually get that improvement out there onto the internet? And so you know you start looking you know so where does TCP come from? And you quickly sort of Google or at the time you used Lycos I think is what we used. And you quickly come across the IETF and specifically there’s a working group that works on this protocol right. And so you figure out there’s a mailing list and you figure out how to join the mailing list. And then you send an email that says hey you know we have this idea about an improvement to TCP. What does the group think about this? And in our case that change was sort of not uncontested let’s say. But the thing is they’re you know the experts participating typically in these groups. And so through these engagement we actually realized there’s a much better change that has a much broader impact. And it has some avoid some of the downsides. And so we revised our proposal and we discussed it. And eventually somebody said you know you should write this up so we can like you know put this forward towards publication. And then you learn about how you like format a document correctly so it can become an RFC and all of that. And then you also learn how does it get processed through the process that Mia just described. And in the end like there’s an RFC. And then if you’re lucky and the change is actually good implementers will pick it up and it’ll get deployed. So that is sort of an example of some of my work that started to come to the IETF. And as Maria said it is extremely open and it’s just possible for individuals to start participating. We don’t require a membership fee. We don’t even require any sort of formal sign up. So we have no notion of that. It is you know capable individuals that either come as individuals on their own time or obviously a lot of our participants are sponsored in some way by companies or other organizations like universities that sort of donate their time or their employers time to help improve the internet protocols. And there was a slide of me as it is with this hourglass slide that talked about the different areas that we’re working in. I often come across people that sort of think you know the internet architecture has is stale and isn’t changing and you know we need to have this you know complete revamp of how the internet worked technically. And that might be true if you look at the 10,000 foot level because we still have protocols like IP and the DNS and TCP. But these protocols have evolved constantly over the three to four decades of the internet’s existence. And all of them are very very different than they were 10 years ago 20 years ago or even two years ago in some cases. But the acronyms are still the same and they still fulfill more or less the same role in the architecture. And therefore it’s it’s easy to sort of assume just because there’s still a thing like the DNS the domain name system that you know the internet hasn’t really evolved when in reality it’s evolving all the time. So one analogy that I sort of use is we are basically maintaining an airplane in flight. We’re constantly changing everything about this airplane while it’s up in the air. And we take great care that it doesn’t crash. And that’s why it looks like nothing’s ever changing, because the plane just keeps flying and keeps rising. But we’re replacing the engines. We’re replacing the landing gear. We’re replacing the cabin interior. We’re replacing everything about this plane constantly. And this is sort of the power of the IETF, right? If you think about how would you actually do the technical standards for a global commons like the IETF, it needs to be done in a forum that is like the IETF, that is open, where everybody can participate no matter where they’re located or what time zone they’re in or what their background is. If they have the technical competence and the interest and the time to help us out, they can very easily do that. And our executive director, Jay Daly, is often saying that if we didn’t have the IETF, we couldn’t invent it now. But because the IETF was born together with the internet and the way of designing the technical specifications really is unique in the world. And if you think about the IETF, multi-stakeholderism is a very important concept that the IETF has. That actually probably originated with the IETF. This whole concept that we need to have different stakeholders participating in the standards process is something that the IETF had already in the 80s and 90s of last century. Because we had university people. We had the operators. We’ve had the equipment vendors. We’ve had various other constituents that came to the IETF to discuss the technical problems that the internet had to make it grow better. And the IETF has a really unique role and is a really unique organization. And those of you who are in a position to send engineers our way or participate as non-engineer stakeholders, please do. We have a few upcoming meetings that will be in Prague in the Czech Republic in November.

Jane Coffin:
We’re going to be in Brisbane in Australia in March of 2024. If I remember correctly, we’re going to be in Vancouver in the summer of next year, the northern summer, I should say, in July. And my memory is hazy from then on out. I hope we’re going to get some questions. I’ll pass it on to the next person. Thank you very much for your interest. Thank you, Lars. The next step is Andrew. Andrew, one to two minutes on what you’re doing and what we can learn more about what you’re participating in.

Andrew Alston:
Thanks very much. My name’s Andrew Alston. I am one of the three routing area directors, which means I basically handle the routing area and handle the standards coming out of the routing area as my primary responsibility in the IETF. When I first came to the IETF, it’s actually, I think, illustrates a little bit about the multi-stakeholder approach. So I live in Africa. I live here in Kenya. I was originally from South Africa, but I’ve been in Kenya for about 12 years. And as we were developing things, I hit up the R&D department for Liquid Telecom on this side of the world. And as we were developing things, we started to see that, firstly, we were facing certain challenges on the ground with regards to distances and other interesting issues that we find in running networks in Africa, as well as political changes which made us need certain things in the routing landscape that weren’t really catered for. And so that’s what brought me to the IETF originally. And I showed up and have never left. But I came in there as an operator. And the one thing that I would say is that I do believe that operators, we need more operators at the IETF. Because one of the things that I learned as I walked into the IETF is that if you want the internet to work in a way that works for you, you need to have your say. You’ve got to have your voice. And one of the things I spent quite a bit of time doing is trying to promote African participation in the IETF as well, to try and grow the participation from the continent. Because we’re sitting at the moment with 1.2 billion people on the continent, but the voices aren’t participating. And the IETF gives people a place to come and to participate and have their say and make sure that the protocols that we are deploying on the continent are not just a retrofit from everywhere else. It’s a consensus-driven approach where we can make our needs heard. And I think that’s really important. So yeah, I really hope to see a lot more operators, a lot more people at the IETF. And yeah, thanks very much for having me.

Jane Coffin:
Thank you, Andrew. Suresh, you’re up.

Suresh Krishnan:
And so with that. Thank you. Hey, my name is Suresh Krishnan. I’m an IEB member. And my thing is similar to Andrew’s. So I started working on IPv6. So IPv6 was a new technology in the late 90s and early 2000s. And it was part of an inclusivity issue. So if you look at the developed world, most of them had large blocks of IP addresses. And countries like India and China are really behind. We didn’t have that many addresses to go around. And a lot of us started doing work on IPv6. And if you look at Japan, Japan was really leading the stuff. Mori Sensei and Ito Jinsan, they were really ahead of the whole world in doing the IPv6 stuff. So that’s where I started. When I went in, I thought it would be this formidable thing and nobody would talk. And I found the experience very similar to last, that all these people you’ve seen in the standards and in the books and everything, they were all amazing people, totally willing to help out. So it was a really nice experience to come in and come up with your problems and solve them, like collaboratively with other people. So that thread has stuck around. And there’s also been a lot of things that we’ve done on the inclusivity front in the recent times. I think the remote participation is one. We always had good remote participation. It’s really ramped up quite a bit during the pandemic. And we continue it. And Nidia talked a little bit about the waiver. So we don’t want to have financial barriers for people to participate. So if you want to participate remotely and you’re not able to afford it, you can certainly get a waiver for that. We have, for people coming to meetings, we have childcare so young parents can continue doing the work on that. And we’ve done quite a bit to get people around from different constituencies, like academia, like Nidia said, with IRSE and IRTF work and operators who come in as well. And so like we are trying really hard to reach out and we would love to hear from people like about your problems, come work with us collaboratively so we can solve things together because as Lars said, the multi-stakeholder approach has really brought us this far and it’ll take us further going forward. Thank you.

Jane Coffin:
Thank you, Suresh. I’m right on time. Dhruv, you’re up next. One to two minutes.

Dhruv Dhody:
Thank you. I’m speaking here from Bangalore, India. I started participating in ITF as a software developer. So I was a consumer of RFCs for a long time. I have been reading RFCs, implementing them. And during that implementation process, you do realize that, oh, this feature is missing or something better can be done. And, oh, I wouldn’t have done it in this way. This is stupid. Let me come and fix this. So that’s how I got involved with my first document. And I wrote an internet draft, came to the first document, luckily got support. But then kind of did realize that it’s not like many people in my part of the world who are very active with RFCs, who read, who implement, but they never participate. They always thought of it as it’s something somebody else does. And we are the software arm of the company and we are going to go and implement things, but somebody else does the actual standard development. And this, I wanted to break. And with the help of, in fact, people like Suresh and other people, we started working within India, which has almost every MNC, every big vendor and huge operators in India, which managed really big networks. So started working with them and how we can increase participation from this part of the world. And over the years, yes, the participation has increasing. Remote participation has helped a lot, but still there is a long way to go. And yes, the journey is not over. I am also the IAB outreach coordinator. I’m part of the education and outreach team in the ITF as well. So this is very important for me as well. And I’m personally trying to put more and more effort in making ITF more accessible for people. I myself can see a lot of change has happened in the years that I started participating in, which is around 2010. So it’s been a while now. And when new people come in, how we can make it easier for them to participate in ITF has been very important. And with various programs as well, we have been doing it. As a non-binary person myself, making sure that the participation from women and other genders is as easy and as successful at ITF is also very key. And we have been focusing on that as well at ITF. Thank you.

Jane Coffin:
Thank you, Dhruv. That was really important to also note about the inclusion part. Colin, you’re up, one to two minutes.

Colin Perkins:
Okay, thank you, Jane. My name is Colin Perkins. I work at the University of Glasgow in the UK. I’m the current chair of the IRTF, the Internet Research Task Force. As Maria said earlier, the IRTF is a parallel organization to the IETF. And we focus on longer-term research to complement the near-term standards work in the IETF. And we try to act as a bridge between the research community and the standards development community in the IETF. I’ve been involved in the IETF and the IRTF since the mid-1990s. I had a somewhat similar experience to that of Lars when starting, I was doing research. In my case, it was multicast video conferencing rather than TCP. And we brought some of the ideas into the IETF community to try and get them standardized. And they got a surprisingly, for me at the time, a positive welcome. I thought this would be a big and scary thing to do, but it turned out to be surprisingly straightforward. And the ideas got some take-up and I got sucked into the process and have been involved ever since. Since then, I’ve continued to work on transport protocols, both in the research community and in the IETF. I’ve chaired a number of IETF working groups. And for the last five years or so, I’ve been sharing the IRTF, coordinating between the research and the standards communities and looking into the dynamics of the IETF standards process. Thank you.

Jane Coffin:
Excellent. Maria, over to you. How have you engaged with the IETF in the past and what’s your current work area of focus?

Mirja Kühlewind:
So I already talk a lot, so I will try to be very brief and we have enough time later for questions. My story is actually very similar. I also started as a PhD student, even working on TCP. And the one thing I wanna mention is that my first meeting was very overwhelming. There’s so much things going on and there’s a lot of things that you don’t understand from the first minute, but that would be a wrong expectation. But the one thing that I felt at the very first meeting I went to and whenever I engaged with the IETF was that there’s a lot of energy, there’s a lot of things happening and there’s a lot of smart people, there’s a lot of those people still there who kind of invented the internet or has been working on the very early protocols who have a lot of expertise, but also knowledge about the history and this whole spirit of having a network to openly connect people and to exchange freely information that’s still there. It was still there when I started and it is still there. And that is also for me the motivation why I keep engaging with the IETF beyond just my technical work, also taking over leadership positions and why I’m sharing the IAB at the moment. Just to give you a little bit more background, I’m an engineer, I’m working for Ericsson. I’m still working on transport, not TCP anymore, but like a new fancy transport protocol, so we’re actually doing some work there. And that’s a large portion of my time. And then the other portion of my time is sharing the IAB. And again, that is not driving my company’s interest forward, but it’s driving the internet and the IETF forward and I think this is really important.

Jane Coffin:
Thank you. Thank you, Miriam, that’s perfect. And Mallory, over to you.

Mallory Knodel:
Yeah, last one to go to introduce. Yeah, I’m Mallory Nodal. I work at the Center for Democracy and Technology. It’s my day job and I’m, as Miriam mentioned, I’m on the Internet Architecture Board with Dhruv and Suresh. Also, I chair a research group on human rights. So I guess a few other roles. I’ve chaired a working group with Suresh a little bit and I’m a reviewer for the general area. That’s another thing that folks can do at the IETF is you can review other people’s work. You don’t always have to be writing it. Something that I find really valuable and helps me follow what’s going on. My first meeting was almost 10 years ago, surprisingly. It was when I was working at the Association for Progressive Communications and I found it a really interesting place for two reasons. The first was that we at APC at the time were really fostering implementation of technology but not the way big tech does it. We were really tiny, sometimes independent, sometimes NGOs that were either running community networks or web or email hosting. And so I found it really interesting to try to infuse those views and those experiences into the larger standards bodies because I think it is often perceived as dominated by big tech and the problem space is just so wildly different. So I found that interesting and useful. And then the second thing that I found really fascinating and impactful about it and why I’ve really stuck around all these years is for a while at APC and then in previous positions, I was a trainer for digital security for like journalists and activists and people who are really at risk in authoritarian regimes and during protests and things like that. And it’s so hard to teach some of those concepts back then like PGP encrypted email, you could spend three days trying to teach journalists how to use it and they still would not always get it right. And you were worried about their security and whether they understood their threat model and things like that. And you still only trained like a handful of people after a week. And at the IETF, what I thought was really interesting is you could actually maybe start try to change the way the internet works for everyone so that you would have a lot more impact and keep keeping people safe online and keeping them connected because the internet itself would change and meet those needs of the most at risk people. And so anyway, that’s what I find really fascinating about working at the IETF level and yeah, looking for the discussion.

Jane Coffin:
Excellent. There’s a question I’ll ask Lars now and Lars, could you let us know what some of the hot topics are in the IETF that participants might want to learn more about? If you could take two to three minutes on that one so that we can get a couple other questions in and then have open it up for Q&A. Thank you.

Lars Eggert:
Yeah, sure. So there are obviously a lot of things happening at the IETF. We have around 120 different working groups that work on different areas of the internet space and all of them are doing something or most of them are doing something but I wanna like maybe hit on a few points. So one of the current themes that have been happening ever since the Snowden revelations over 10 years ago is that the IETF is really serious about strengthening the security of the internet and the privacy protections that users have. And we’ve done a lot of work there. One of the core protocols in that space is TLS, the transport layer security protocol. And we’ve recently, I think two years ago or something like that published version 1.3 of TLS which has significantly simplified the protocol and has also added to the security and privacy protections that are offered to users. And that is widely deployed now all major browsers, all browsers really implemented all servers and CDNs implemented and TLS 1.3 really has upped the game for online security. So that’s a thing we recently did. TLS 1.3 is also part of the QUIC protocol that you might’ve heard about which is another thing that the IETF has recently shipped. QUIC is not quite replacing TCP but at least providing similar features in terms of data transport for the new version of the HTTP web protocol which is HTTP version 3. And that is also a massive effort that I think by some counts QUIC with HTTP 3 and TLS 1.3 is already close to half of all web traffic within just a year or two or three after initial deployment. So that illustrates that work in the IETF sometimes takes a long time because it’s complicated and we need to get it all correct. Because remember maintaining the plane while it’s flying. So we don’t wanna crash it. But once something is ready and if it solves a need it can get global deployment very, very quickly. And so the internet is dramatically changing because of things the IETF is doing every day. And sometimes the entire model of the internet traffic is changing from within a few months from mostly HTTP 2 with TCP and TLS 1.2 to now QUIC and TLS 1.3. So that is sort of demonstrates the power that the IETF really has in terms of driving change in the internet. I wanna maybe mention one last topic which isn’t quite in part of this sort of core set of internet protocols but it’s very important. So there’s a way in which the IETF starts new work when we don’t have a working group that already fits that proposal which is called a birds of a feather session. had one, the acronym for it is DALT. I must admit, I forget what the expansion is. But never mind. The problem DALT is trying to solve is all of us now have like AirTags and various other Bluetooth trackers, location trackers in our luggage, or our backpacks, or a keychain, or a car, or somewhere else. And stalking through these devices is a huge problem. So AirTags and other devices like that work great, except when somebody slips you one of these things into your purse, or into your car, or somewhere else. And then they can track you. And obviously, that is a very real threat model. We know where people’s personal privacy and bodily harm is at stake. And DALT is an example where the big vendors of these devices have tried to come together and have looked for a forum for where they can all standardize on how can your Google Android phone alert you if someone has slipped you an Apple AirTag? Because there are two different ecosystems in terms of devices. But they need to cooperate around the standard for making sure that your phone, your Android phone alerts you if somebody has slipped an AirTag into your purse, although it’s an Apple device. And the security modeling and the solution space is very complicated. But it’s very, very, very important, given the vast amount of tags that are out there. And this is obviously just the beginning, because the more tags are out, the better the tracking works. And that enables new uses for yet more tags. This is a new work. So there’s not an ITF standard on it yet. It’s not even a working group yet, although it’s very likely that by the meeting in Prague in two or three weeks, we’ll likely start a working group. But it demonstrates that the ITF is sort of a natural home for some of these technical areas that are adjacent to the overall internet. Because these tracking networks become enabled because the internet exists. And so organizations that look for a home that has open participation, where it’s free to use the standards. Because we want everybody to be able to integrate this into their tracking networks. So we don’t want to have a solution that requires somebody to pay revenues or pay membership fees so they can participate in the setting of the standard or deploying it. And so they have chosen the ITF as a home, because we have clear rules about how we do our work. Everybody understands them. Everybody understands you just participate individually. There’s no membership fees. There’s no restrictions on the use of the outcome technology. And we’re hoping that that will get deployment very widely as well once the technical work is done.

Jane Coffin:
Thank you very much, Lars. We’re going to open it up for some Q&A in the room and online. Does anyone have any questions for any of our panelists about the IETF or the IRTF? And Dhruv is our online moderator. And Dhruv, I don’t see anything online. Do you? I might have missed something.

Dhruv Dhody:
No, none so far.

Jane Coffin:
OK, we have a question here in the room. Please, and if you could keep the question short so that we can give you a short answer.

Dhruv Dhody:
Sure.

Audience:
Yeah, hopefully this is on. Andrew Campling, I run a public policy, public affairs consultancy. And I’m an ITF enthusiast. We sort of touched on but haven’t really expanded on diversity in standards bodies. When we consider diversity on whatever axis you like, whether it’s geographic, ethnicity, age, or gender, it’s a big problem. So for example, the IETF is about 10% female participation to give one example. It’s not a multi-stakeholder process. So there’s very limited involvement of CSOs and those that do engage with relatively narrow perspective or represent relatively narrow points of view. Governments and their agencies are largely not involved. And equally, end users are not present. And as I think Andrew mentioned, the tech sector representation is pretty narrow. So we don’t have many network operators, for example. If we accept that diversity improves the culture of an organization and the quality of its output, what are the unintentional barriers to both entry and to ongoing participation that affect that diversity? And how can we fix them so that we get much better diversity of thought and therefore better standards?

Andrew Alston:
So Andrew, I’m going to ask you to answer that question. And could you do that in about a minute to two minutes? Yeah, sure. Andrew, the diversity question is always an interesting one for me. And we’ve had some quite extensive debates about this at the IETF. I think you’ve got to look at it as, what does diversity mean in the context of the IETF? Because I think that it goes so much deeper than when you start looking at what I would consider your standard diversity metrics of gender, race, et cetera. It comes down to, what is the diversity of technical thought and bringing that into the IETF? For example, I think that sitting here in Africa, I bring an African perspective, which is diverse. And I think that to say that the IETF is also not a multi-stakeholder engagement model, I think that that’s actually fundamentally inaccurate. Because there is a lot of multi-stakeholder engagement. You have the operators. You have the vendors. And the participation is open for anybody to come and participate. Be you an operator, be you a vendor, be you a government. I know that I’ve done a lot of presentations to various government entities saying, we need more involvement from Africa. It’s about encouraging people to come. But I would definitely say that the IETF is a multi-stakeholder organization. And we welcome that participation and actively encourage it. But I think on the diversity question, as I said, it comes down to, how do you define the diversity? And for me, that diversity is about bringing cultures. It’s about bringing different perspectives, different views from different segments of the industry, et cetera. And in that sense, I actually think the IETF is, it has a lot of diversity in that sense. We could do better. But I do think that it is there. So I hope that helps.

Jane Coffin:
Thank you, Andrew. We’re going to turn it over to Miria. But I would also want to just put out there, for those of you that may not know this, there is a policymakers group where ISOC funds that. And you’ve brought people from all over the world, from the governmental sector, from parliamentarians and others. It’s a quiet group. They meet with different people from the IETF and the IAB and the IRTF. And I would just say that there’s probably more going on on a multi-stakeholder level than some people would know. Miria, over to you.

Mirja Kühlewind:
Yes, I would like to add quickly a few points. And one point is that we totally understand actually engaging actively in the IETF needs resources, right? And the IETF also depends on these resources. We don’t have staff members who are working on the standards. Actually, the participants that voluntarily come to the IETF and do all the work. So if you want to engage on that level, that is a big commitment. And we totally understand that not even in the private sector everybody can afford that. But on the other hand, it’s important to have a certain diversity in order to ensure quality of our standards and then make sure everybody, even those people who didn’t have the resources to participate in the creation of the standards can freely use the standards and can engage if they want to enhance the standards. And this is a really important point where it’s not only about bringing people and taking the pen up, but reaching out and making sure people are aware about what we’re doing. And that’s something we try to do a lot more, including with policy stakeholders where we try to reach out and have a dialogue and try to explain what we’re doing, how it works, where touch points are, also bridging this information back into the IETF. So there are challenges in active participation. But I think to have a dialogue and to understand the requirements, we also need other ways to do that.

Jane Coffin:
Thank you, Mirja. And thank you for your question. It was an important question. Someone else in the room who has a question, please. OK, well, Dinesh, please.

Audience:
My name is Dinesh. I’m from Bangalore, India and working in a rural area. So my question is a little bit of segue, but I am starting with Maria. Maria, right? No, no, her. OK. Yeah, Mallory. I’m sorry, I’m sorry. So what you said, like you’re coming from APC background and then you’re coming from web background and then you’re doing IETF standards. My question for the whole conference has been in almost everywhere I’ve been, why is not anybody working on web standards, extending it to the communities out there? Is the internet done? You know, when it comes to web protocols, web standards, and all that, we need to push it.

Mallory Knodel:
That’s what I’m kind of trying to say. Absolutely. Well, the World Wide Web Consortium is largely responsible for the web standards, right? W3C. It would be great to have the W3C at the IGF more, I think. As someone who also engages there, my organization is really invested in the web standards, a variety of different standards that aren’t just about the web and all the other ways that it faces the users more. I think, yeah, it would be great to have them more. So it’s not necessarily a question for the IETF. There is some degree of overlap, right, between what happens there and we also have an established, IETF has an established liaison, or no, do we have an established liaison? We do, we have an established liaison relationship with the W3C. That’s what I was worried about. We had a recent conversation in which that has confused me. But no, so that’s important and that happens already. But in fact, yeah, it would be great to, in the IGF, which I think is mostly seen as a policy space, to actually have this bridging role where the technical community comes as well. So while this is our first, the IETF’s first time doing an open forum, we know ICANN has done one for a while, we know ISOC has been involved, maybe we can convince W3C to come next time as well.

Colin Perkins:
And just to follow up very briefly on that, Lars mentioned HTTP3, which is the next version of the web transport protocol, which was developed in the IETF very recently. And in collaboration with the W3C, we also did the WebRTC protocols for video conferencing, which I think we’ve all put a lot of effort into over the last few years with the pandemic. Yeah, as a follow-up on that, John, from the Yale Foundation, the main difference would be the membership system that they have in W3C. So participation is quite more difficult unless you can actually afford the fees. So there has to be a more reflection on how to proceed with that, thanks.

Jane Coffin:
Thank you, over to you.

Audience:
Thank you, I actually have a comment, not a question, but my name is Danko Jevtovic from ICANN board, and I would first like to forward the best from our chair Tripti Sinha, but she’s an bilateral, so couldn’t be here, and thank the AIB for sending Harald to us. I think he says always his role is to protect us from breaking the internet, so he’s very good at that, and thank you. But most of all, thank you for the standards you’re making and your work on privacy. This is the key underpinning of the technical layer that we are all working on together. I still remember my reading of the first RFC that was SMTP protocol when we were trying to connect in Serbia BBS system to internet to exchange our emails and writing code to read it. And for me personally, it was a shock how easy it was to read that document and how enabling that was to help in the internet. So ICANN obviously supports IETF and your specific multi-stakeholder model, and we often looking at the whole ecosystem of standard organizations. Sometimes there is discussion also about standards that are developed inside different organizations, but for me, it’s the clear that IETF is the key for the technical layer of the internet, and the strength is the openness and free standards that are based on IP and voluntarily accepted. So this is kind of the reason for the win of open networks against closed systems. And we often hear even in the IGF and other fora about ideas for changing the basic protocols in the kind of old ITU style way of thinking. But I think given this tremendous success of the internet, it’s clear that the way how IETF is doing is the way forward, and we are grateful for that. Keep on doing it, and we support you, thank you.

Jane Coffin:
Thank you, and thank you very much for what you do on the ICANN board. Is there anyone else? Okay, lovely, we’ve got about two more questions in the, we’ve got five minutes. So if you have a minute to ask it, we’ll get a minute to answer it and see what we can do.

Audience:
This is Ignacio Castro from Queen Mary University of London, and I chair a research group at the IETF. I’ve heard quite a few times here that certain groups are not represented in the technical community, but to be frank, I have been quite surprised to see how little representation of the technical community is in the IGF, and I’m wondering what would be the way to bridge that gap, because it looks like both communities are seeing exactly the same problem on the other side.

Jane Coffin:
I’ll just quickly say, I couldn’t agree with you more. There was more participation in the beginning 10 to 15 years, and it’s been, and this is one of the reasons the IETF, IEB, RERTF is here today and has this great session, and I think you’ll see more in the future.

Mallory Knodel:
No, I just wanted to say that, that I think there’s a recognition of that, and it’s certainly something that everyone I feel like I’ve spoken to today and this week from the technical community, even those that aren’t here, RERs and others, are aware of and think there’s a concerted effort now to shift that back to where it used to be, like Jane said.

Mirja Kühlewind:
I do want to acknowledge the point you make about challenges, because this forum is also very broad. I found it very interesting to be here. I learned a lot, also, just for me personally, caring about the internet as a citizen, but identifying the parts of the discussion where we can provide valuable input is challenging for us.

Jane Coffin:
And that’s a really good point, Mirja. We may want to see if we can talk to the MAG or make more input on a technical track, right? Which, because we used to come and do internet exchange points, BGP, a little bit of IP addressing, so maybe we bring that back. We have room for one more question if you ask it quickly. I don’t see any, oh, Bravo, go ahead.

Audience:
My name is Makoto Nakamura from the local government of Nara City, Japan. Now I fight against legacy technology or legacy people, and today’s government system in Japan often use FTP, still use FTP, or old protocols. Would you have any idea to quit the old protocol or legacy protocol into the trash? I know that the RFC backed obsolete, I know, but it’s a replacement of the new protocol or almost all of six cases. So how would you step up or move to new technology and push from the IDF? This is my first questions.

Mirja Kühlewind:
So, I mean, gladly, even so, these old protocols are still there, the internet doesn’t break, so that’s part of the architecture, and that’s the good news. I think a lot of these protocols, like there has been a lot of focus on security, for example, and sometimes that’s, unfortunately, a harder selling point than performance. If you have a protocol which gives you direct benefits that shows your investment on a short-term payback, then it’s easy to convince people. If you have to update your new protocol and you have to invest money, manpower, knowledge, and you don’t get a direct payback, that’s a challenge, but I think we need to just go and explain the importance of updating these protocols and the impact on the long-term to keep the internet healthy and to protect your own services you’re providing by getting a more reliable, more secure, and a better network. So I think it’s an education task for us all, and I understand the challenge.

Jane Coffin:
There’s also, just another shout-out to ISOC, I used to work there, I don’t work there now, just a disclaimer, but there’s a really strong Japanese chapter, and they may be able to do some workshops with you. They’re really great. I think we’re at time, and I think it’s time to just say thank you to everybody for participating, for everyone in the room, everyone online, thank you, Drew, for being the online moderator, and everyone else here, so give yourselves a round of applause, thank you very much, and stay in touch with the IETF, IAB.

Audience:
Thank you, Jane, that was crazy. I was thinking, how about we get a two-hour session into 40 minutes? I feel like it’s time to get into a recession. I don’t think we have time for a recession. No, for the open forum, there was only one hour with the only options. Yeah, maybe. Yeah, probably, yeah. Maybe, yeah. I think it was good, but it was scary. It’d be nice if we could. Virtual on-site, working really fast. It’s really good. It’s really small. It’s regular. It’s good to go to the on-site.

Colin Perkins

Colin Perkins, an academic with extensive experience in standard development, highlights the primary challenge faced by individuals in participating in this field: funding. Perkins argues that the lack of financial resources presents a significant barrier for those who wish to contribute to standard development. This observation reflects a negative sentiment towards the current state of funding in this area.

To address this issue, Perkins suggests that remote participation, facilitated through video conferencing and email discussions, can be a cost-effective and efficient alternative for those unable to attend standard development events in person. While he acknowledges that remote participation may not be as effective as physical presence, he asserts that it is better than no participation at all. This perspective demonstrates a positive outlook on the potential of remote participation in overcoming the challenges associated with physical presence constraints.

Regarding diversity in standard development organizations (SDOs), Perkins notes that diversity has significantly increased over time. He highlights the shift from 75% of Request for Comments (RFCs) originating from North America 20 years ago to the current figure of 40%. Additionally, Perkins points out that the number of RFCs from Europe and Asia has doubled in the past two decades. However, he acknowledges that participation from South America, Africa, and women remains inadequate. This mixed sentiment underscores the growth of diversity while recognizing the need for further progress in achieving greater inclusivity.

Lastly, Perkins asserts that engagement in standard development requires time, effort, and expertise. He emphasizes that gaining the necessary expertise is not an instantaneous process, underscoring the importance of investing in education and continuous learning. This neutral sentiment highlights the commitment and dedication necessary for effective engagement in standard development.

In summary, Colin Perkins emphasizes the significant funding challenge faced by individuals interested in participating in standard development. He also highlights the potential of remote participation as an alternative for those unable to attend in person, while acknowledging its limitations. Perkins acknowledges the progress in diversity within SDOs but notes the need for increased participation from underrepresented groups. Lastly, he emphasizes the importance of time, effort, and expertise in engaging in standard development. These insights provide valuable considerations for addressing the current limitations and future directions in the field of standard development.

Ignacio Castro

The process of standardization for technical standards is becoming more complex, involving a wider range of stakeholders and taking approximately three years from the initial draft to publication. This increasing complexity is attributed to the participation of a larger number of areas, people, countries, and companies. The expansion of technical standards highlights the need for continuous updates and enhancements to meet the evolving requirements of industries, innovation, and infrastructure, as outlined in SDG 9: Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure.

However, although many Internet Standard Bodies are open, accessibility to these standards remains a significant challenge. It has been observed that accessibility is limited to individuals who have a technical background, understand the standards, and have the time and energy to engage with them. This lack of accessibility contradicts the principle that open standards should be accessible to everyone. SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities can only be achieved when accessibility is inclusive, enabling everyone to benefit from and contribute to technical standards.

Another hindrance to engaging with technical standard bodies is the requirement of a technical background. While this may seem obvious, it is crucial to acknowledge that not all participants in the standardization process possess the necessary technical expertise. This limitation can potentially exclude valuable perspectives and hinder the development of more inclusive and comprehensive standards. Recognizing and addressing this issue is essential for achieving the collaborative and cooperative goals outlined in SDG 17: Partnership for the Goals, which emphasizes the importance of partnerships.

To address the challenge of accessibility and promote inclusivity within technical standard bodies, further research is needed. One proposed approach is the analysis of standardization processes, which has the potential to bridge the gaps and make standards more accessible to individuals without a technical background. A research group led by an expert in this field is actively examining standardization processes within the International Research Task Force (IRTF). This research aims to provide insights and recommendations for making standard bodies more accessible to a wider audience.

In conclusion, the standardization process for technical standards is becoming more complex, requiring the involvement of more stakeholders and an extended timeframe for development. However, accessibility to these standards remains limited to individuals with a technical background, creating barriers to inclusivity. Engaging with technical standard bodies demands technical expertise, but acknowledging the need for inclusivity without such expertise is crucial. Further research into analyzing standardization processes can contribute to addressing accessibility challenges and making technical standard bodies accessible to all.

Moderator – Sheetal Kumar

The discussion focused on the significance of internet standards in shaping our lives and the exercise of human rights in the digital age. It was emphasised that the growing dependence on the internet and digital technologies makes the role of internet standards crucial.

The Office for the Human Rights Commissioner published a report that aimed to provide an understanding of how technical standards intersect with human rights. The report highlighted the need to comprehend the impact of new and emerging technologies on human rights. It encouraged the integration of human rights perspectives in technical standard-setting organisations. The report also underlined the importance of sharing experiences to foster a better understanding of the opportunities and challenges associated with engagement in standard-setting forums.

There was a consensus that a wider range of stakeholders should be involved in standards development to enhance inclusivity and comprehensiveness. It was acknowledged that involving diverse perspectives is necessary to ensure that the standards reflect a broader range of interests and considerations.

Challenges faced at standard forums were discussed, and there was an emphasis on finding ways to overcome these challenges to represent diverse perspectives effectively. Moderator Sheetal Kumar appreciated the panel’s input and highlighted the need to address the identified challenges.

One notable observation was that technical standards are deemed complex and difficult to monitor. This highlights the need for improved accessibility and understanding of these standards for a broader audience beyond those who possess technical expertise.

It was recognised that efforts should be made to encourage and engage communities that want to participate in technical standards, even if they do not have a technical background. The session emphasised the importance of fostering collaboration between technical and non-technical communities.

The session also discussed the progress being made to make internet standards more accessible and human rights-oriented. The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) and the Human Rights Protocol Considerations Group were mentioned as organisations that have already started working towards this goal. Recommendations from the OHCHR report, as well as the UN guiding principles on business and human rights, can serve as frameworks to ensure proper human rights due diligence in standards organisations.

Overall, the session recognised the challenges and complexities involved in standards development and implementation. However, there was a consensus on the need for change and a strong desire to implement the shared ideas and recommendations. The session concluded by looking forward to seeing the implementation of these ideas and recommendations to create standards that are more inclusive, responsive to diverse perspectives, and uphold human rights.

Peggy

The landscape of standard-setting bodies in relation to human rights in digital governance processes is characterised by diversity and complexity, presenting various challenges that need to be addressed. One of the key issues lies in the lack of meaningful participation and transparency in the standard-setting processes. This hampers the ability of stakeholders to actively contribute and shape the standards, leading to potential biases and imbalances in their development. Moreover, financial, cultural, and language barriers further exacerbate the problem by excluding certain groups from participating effectively.

Furthermore, there is a pressing need for equal access and inclusion in standard-setting bodies, particularly for civil society, academia, marginalised voices, women, youth, and voices from global majority. Despite the doors being seemingly open, obstacles continue to hinder their engagement in these processes. This indicates that more efforts are required to ensure that these bodies become genuinely inclusive and reflect a broader range of perspectives and experiences. Additionally, it is worth noting that these standard-setting processes are often dominated by large companies due to their greater resources, which can perpetuate power imbalances.

However, there is a positive development in the form of a strong appetite from standard-setting bodies to improve their engagement with communities affected by digital technologies. They recognise that their credibility and effectiveness depend on incorporating the insights and concerns of these communities. This acknowledgement suggests a growing recognition of the importance of inclusive decision-making processes.

In conclusion, the landscape of standard-setting bodies in the context of human rights in digital governance processes presents a complex and diverse picture. The challenges that need to be addressed include the lack of meaningful participation, transparency, financial, cultural, and language barriers, and the dominance of large companies. Nonetheless, there is a growing awareness of the need for equal access and inclusion, and an appetite among standard-setting bodies to engage more effectively with affected communities. These insights highlight the importance of enhancing participation, inclusivity, and transparency within standard-setting processes to ensure the development of fair and effective digital governance standards.

Vanessa Cravo

Standards play a significant role in our lives, impacting how we live and communicate. They shape various aspects of our daily lives, from the products we use to the services we rely on. However, standardization processes are often not representative of all regions, particularly the Global South. This underrepresentation leads to inequalities and hinders the inclusion of diverse perspectives.

Furthermore, the development of standards often fails to consider the needs of every demographic, resulting in potential harm to certain groups. For example, seatbelts that do not prioritize women’s safety can pose risks to female passengers. It is crucial for standards to be inclusive and prioritize the needs and safety of all individuals.

The role of standards has evolved with the emergence of new technologies and changing demands. This evolution necessitates a shift in how we approach processes and organizations to effectively address these changes.

Stakeholder engagement is vital in the standardization process. Engaging all parties, including academia, fosters a more diverse and inclusive discussion. The inclusion of academia in sessions addressing standardization within the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) is an important step towards incorporating their expertise and perspectives.

Brazil serves as an example of a country that actively involves diverse stakeholders in its national standardization processes. With an open and plural organization, Brazil encourages discussion and participation from multiple perspectives.

Digital technologies have a significant impact on our lives, and their regulatory standards require comprehensive discussions. The rapid development and adoption of emerging technologies call for proactive and thorough debates to ensure that the standards effectively address associated risks and opportunities.

While some standard organizations strive for openness, it does not guarantee universal engagement in discussions. Openness must be accompanied by active efforts to involve different stakeholders to ensure a truly inclusive standardization process.

It is essential for standard organizations to embed human rights considerations in their processes. Discussions surrounding standards should include a focus on upholding human rights principles to ensure ethical outcomes.

Civil society plays a crucial role in the standardization process, and its engagement with national governments is key to participation in standard organizations. The Philippines and Brazil serve as examples of countries where national delegations provide platforms for civil society engagement.

However, barriers, such as membership fees associated with standard organizations, hinder civil society participation. These fees limit involvement and perpetuate inequalities. Efforts should be made to address these barriers and promote equal participation.

In conclusion, standards have a significant impact on our lives and require an inclusive and diverse approach. Addressing the underrepresentation of the Global South and considering the needs of every demographic are essential to avoid harm. Stakeholder engagement, including academia and civil society, is vital for a comprehensive and equitable standardization process. Openness and the inclusion of human rights considerations should be embedded in the processes of standard organizations. Additionally, barriers that limit civil society participation, such as membership fees, should be addressed to promote equal engagement.

Yog Desai

This analysis explores the critical role of funding in enhancing the participation of the global South in standardization organizations. It emphasizes the need for continuous financial support, rather than one-time contributions, to ensure meaningful engagement. To achieve a well-rounded representation, the interests of the broader community should be considered, rather than solely focusing on government agendas.

The study highlights the importance of physical presence during discussions and decision-making processes within these organizations. This active involvement requires substantial financial backing for travel expenses, accommodation, and related costs. By securing adequate funding, organizations can enable representatives from the global South to contribute significantly and have their voices heard on standardization matters, promoting diverse perspectives and reducing inequalities.

Additionally, the analysis stresses the importance of sourcing funding in line with the interests of the broader community. It points out that certain programs, such as those implemented by the Indian government, often send representatives who primarily prioritize government interests. However, for effective representation, funding decisions should consider the needs and aspirations of all stakeholders, including civil society organizations, academia, and industry.

Moreover, the analysis calls for increased awareness among social science researchers about their role in the standardization domain. By actively engaging with this field, researchers can better understand the actions and impacts of standardization processes on socio-economic aspects. This knowledge can inform policymaking, encourage innovative solutions, and contribute to achieving SDG 9 on Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure.

In conclusion, this analysis highlights the critical link between funding and increased participation of the global South in standardization organizations. It advocates for continuous financial support and a community-focused approach. Furthermore, it emphasizes the importance of social science researchers contributing their expertise to the standardization domain. By addressing these considerations, a more inclusive and equitable standardization landscape can be fostered, supporting the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals.

Eva Ignatuschtschenko

The UK government has a strong track record of engaging in international technical standards, supporting a multi-stakeholder and industry-led system that promotes inclusivity and participation. They have recently embedded standards in the G7 agreements, highlighting their dedication to global cooperation. The government also prioritizes the promotion of human rights within technical standards, recognizing potential infringements on privacy and personal liberties. They emphasize the importance of ethics in developing standards for emerging technologies like AI. Meaningful engagement between human rights experts and standards bodies is crucial, as is investment in organizational development and collaboration. When it is not feasible to involve all civil society organizations directly, working with proxies can ensure their presence. The government supports collective action and knowledge-sharing among organizations to address challenges effectively. By prioritizing these principles, the UK government fosters innovation and progress in the development and implementation of technical standards.

Natam

The analysis explores the issue of inequality in the participation of civil society organisations (CSOs) and human rights experts in standard-setting bodies related to internet governance. It highlights that the limited participation of such organisations is due to the lack of resources and technical capacity. This inequality raises concerns about the inclusivity and representativeness of standard-setting processes.

Data Privacy Brazil emphasizes the need for standard-setting bodies to incorporate discussions on human rights. Their submission to the Human Rights Office call for inputs underscores the importance of integrating human rights considerations into the development of technical standards. By incorporating human rights discussions, standard-setting bodies can ensure that their processes align with principles such as freedom of expression, privacy, and non-discrimination.

On a positive note, advocating for a multi-stakeholder approach has the potential to improve dialogue between standard-setting processes and human rights considerations. By involving multiple stakeholders, including CSOs and human rights experts, in the standard-setting processes, a broader range of perspectives and expertise can be integrated. This approach ensures that human rights considerations are taken into account and that the resulting standards are more inclusive and responsive to the needs of all stakeholders.

The Internet Governance Forum (IGF) acts as a space that provides opportunities for CSOs to participate in international standard-setting processes. It is described as an open and multi-stakeholder platform where discussions on technical and human rights issues can take place. The IGF not only allows CSOs to contribute to the development of standards but also facilitates capacity-building activities that enable participants to deepen their understanding of internet governance issues.

In conclusion, the analysis highlights the inequality in the participation of CSOs and human rights experts in standard-setting bodies related to internet governance. It emphasizes the importance of incorporating human rights discussions into the development of technical standards. Advocating for a multi-stakeholder approach is presented as a means to improve dialogue between standard-setting processes and human rights considerations. The IGF is identified as a platform that enables CSOs to actively participate and contribute to international standard-setting processes while promoting capacity-building and discussions on technical and human rights issues. This enhanced understanding of the issue provides valuable insights into the need for more inclusive and rights-based approaches in the development of internet governance standards.

Vint Cerf

The summary highlights the significance of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the need to identify standards for the realization of these rights. It emphasizes the importance of accessibility, specifically in terms of online access, for addressing issues related to information and rights. The lack of implementation of standards is also addressed, noting the need for practical examples to guide developers and policymakers. Furthermore, the negative impact of limited accessibility on individuals’ ability to access the justice system is discussed. Overall, the summary emphasizes the importance of standards and accessibility in promoting equal access to information and justice.

Peter Marien

The report raises concerns about certain technical standard proposals that have the potential to undermine the use of the internet while respecting human rights. These proposals, if implemented, could have severe implications for privacy and may even lead to the fragmentation of the internet. This is particularly worrisome as the internet is meant to be a platform that respects fundamental rights as outlined in various charters.

On a positive note, the close cooperation and dialogue between the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) and the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) are appreciated. This collaboration shows a commitment to addressing the challenges posed by digital standard setting and ensuring that human rights are protected in this context.

The importance of involving various stakeholders in technical environments is highlighted. The complex nature of these environments calls for a diverse range of perspectives and expertise. It is hoped that more stakeholders will gradually be involved in these discussions to ensure a comprehensive and inclusive decision-making process.

Furthermore, the European Commission has announced new cooperation with OHCHR in the field of human rights and standard setting. This demonstrates a commitment to reinforcing the links between human rights and the establishment of standards. This collaboration has the potential to create a positive impact and promote human rights considerations in the development of technical standards.

In conclusion, the report brings attention to the potential risks and challenges associated with certain technical standard proposals. It underscores the need for ongoing collaboration, dialogue, and the involvement of various stakeholders in the decision-making processes related to standard setting. The newly announced cooperation between OHCHR and the European Commission presents an opportunity to strengthen the protection of human rights in this domain.

One noteworthy observation from the analysis is the focus on the Sustainable Development Goal 16 (Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions) and Goal 17 (Partnerships for the Goals). These goals align with the discussions around human rights, standard setting, and the involvement of various stakeholders. This highlights the broader context of the report and its implications for global efforts to achieve sustainable development.

Andrew Campling

The discussion centers around the lack of diversity in internet standards bodies, such as the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). It is reported that only around 10% of members in the IETF are female, highlighting a significant gender disparity within the organization. Additionally, there is underrepresentation in terms of geography, ethnicity, and age, indicating a lack of diversity on multiple axes.

The lack of diversity in standards bodies is viewed negatively as it undermines the development of inclusive and comprehensive standards. Having a limited range of perspectives and experiences poses a risk of overlooking important considerations and requirements. The current situation emphasizes the need for greater representation and inclusion in the decision-making processes of these bodies.

In addition to the gender disparity, there is a noted lack of involvement from governments and their agencies, including the European Commission and European Member States. This results in a narrow viewpoint driving the development of standards, potentially leading to biased or inadequate outcomes. The low engagement of these stakeholders further limits the diversity of perspectives and expertise in shaping internet standards.

To address these issues, it is argued that there is a need to integrate multiple stakeholders into the standards process. By involving a broader range of voices and expertise, the resulting standards can be more comprehensive, inclusive, and representative of the global population. Embedding diversity and inclusion principles into the decision-making processes of standards bodies can lead to better standards that meet the needs of a wide range of users.

It is suggested that better diversity and inclusion would lead to improved standards. By incorporating a wider range of perspectives and experiences, standards can become more robust, adaptable, and responsive to the diverse needs and requirements of users. This aligns with the goals of SDG 5: Gender Equality and SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities, which aim to promote equal opportunities and inclusive societies.

In conclusion, the lack of diversity in internet standards bodies, such as the IETF, is a significant concern. The underrepresentation of women, diverse ethnicities, different geographical backgrounds, and various age groups highlights the need for greater diversity and inclusion in these bodies. By integrating multiple stakeholders into the standards process, better standards can be developed that are more inclusive and representative of the global population. Achieving this would not only address the current disparities but also contribute to the goals of gender equality and reduced inequalities.

Jessamine Pacis

CSO participation in standard setting processes is hindered by various challenges, including the resource-intensive nature of these processes and the requirement for long-lasting and consistent engagement. The costs associated with travel, membership, and participation make it difficult for civil society organisations (CSOs) to actively participate in these processes. Additionally, continuous engagement is vital for meaningful participation and influencing outcomes.

On the other hand, government agencies can provide access to standard-setting processes, such as those facilitated by organisations like the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), and Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). However, there is a significant challenge in terms of inconsistent engagement from government agencies. Fluctuating leadership and changing priorities often lead to varying levels of commitment and involvement, which can impact the effectiveness of CSO participation enabled through government agencies.

To address these challenges and ensure a more inclusive and effective standard-setting process, it is suggested that a multi-stakeholder approach be adopted. This approach emphasises the involvement of various stakeholders, including CSOs, government agencies, and other relevant actors, in decision-making processes. The recommendation is to commence this multi-stakeholder process at the national level first before expanding it globally.

One reason for starting at the national level is that government interest and commitment to international standards-setting processes can fluctuate over time. By establishing a strong foundation at the national level, the multi-stakeholder approach can better handle any changes in government priorities or leadership. Currently, the Philippines serves as an example, as it has not had a representative in the ICANN Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) for over a decade. This lack of representation highlights the importance of having consistent engagement and a multi-stakeholder process that can ensure sustained involvement and influence in global standard setting.

In conclusion, CSO participation in standard-setting processes is challenging due to the resource-intensive nature and the need for consistent engagement. While government agencies can enable access to these processes, their level of involvement tends to be inconsistent. Adopting a multi-stakeholder approach, beginning at the national level, can help overcome these challenges and ensure a more inclusive and effective standard-setting process.

Vittorio Bertola

The analysis covers three speakers and their perspectives on various topics.

Vittorio, who was involved in designing the multi-stakeholder model 20-25 years ago, supports the application of this model to standard-setting organizations. This indicates his positive sentiment towards a multi-stakeholder approach.

Concerning the standardisation process for the internet, Vittorio holds a negative sentiment. He believes that the current process is always playing catch-up due to its deployment-first nature. In his view, technology is first invented and deployed on the internet, and only then standardised. This perspective suggests that Vittorio sees the current standardisation process as problematic and in need of improvement.

Turning to the HRPC (Human Rights, Privacy, and Conditions) committee, it is noted that the current perspective is predominantly focused on freedom of expression, with a lack of representation from the Global South. Vittorio argues that in order to address this issue, it is necessary to create more diversity in perspectives within the committee. This highlights the importance of including voices from different regions to ensure a balanced and inclusive approach to human rights.

Overall, the analysis showcases Vittorio’s support for a multi-stakeholder model in standard-setting organizations, his concerns about the deployment-first nature of the standardisation process for the internet, and his belief in the necessity of diversity in perspectives on the HRPC committee. These viewpoints shed light on the need for more inclusive and collaborative approaches in these areas.

Moderator – Sheetal Kumar:
Hello, everyone. Good morning. Welcome to this session on Internet Standards and Human Rights. We will get started. I’m sorry that we’re starting a bit late. I was waiting for the panelists to arrive. A very warm welcome to you if you’re joining us online as well. My name is Sheetal Kumar, and I co-lead Global Partners Digital’s engagement in digital governance processes, and we are co-hosting this session with the European Centre for Not-for-Profit Law, ECNL, with the Office of the UN’s High Commissioner for Human Rights, OHCHR, and the European Commission, the Department for International Partnerships. So welcome, welcome. We have just started. Again, welcome to everyone here in the room and online. Just to give a bit of a context, at GPD, we are a human rights organization working to embed human rights in the governance of digital technologies, which includes not only, of course, regulation and policy frameworks, but also technical standards. And I think internet standards are perhaps one of the areas of internet governance or part of the internet that may feel invisible for many, but actually, and unless perhaps you’re working on them, they’re fundamentally shaping, of course, our lives and the exercise of our human rights in the digital age as we become even more dependent on the internet and on digital technologies. And so in this session, we want to discuss and elucidate for you two main things. the connections between Internet standards and human rights, and the challenges and opportunities for stakeholders to engage, or a wider range of stakeholders to engage in standards development. So the Office for the Human Rights Commissioner this year published a report based on consultations with stakeholders on technical standards for new and emerging technologies, and that’s why I’m delighted to start with opening remarks from Peggy Hicks, Director, Thematic Engagement, Special Procedures and Right to Development Division. As Peggy does have to leave us, I want to make sure that we come to you first before we turn to the other panellists and before I introduce them. So Peggy, over to you. I know that the report is a really important introduction to this issue and provides an overview and an understanding of how technical standards and human rights intersect. That relationship provides a range of recommendations as well. If you can provide, over the next few minutes, an overview of the report, its substance, that will provide a really great context for our discussion here. So over to you, Peggy. Thank you.

Peggy:
Great. Thanks so much. It’s a real pleasure to be here, and thank you for really highlighting this critical issue. I think you’re right that it’s an issue that doesn’t really rise to the top the way that it needs to in terms of the focus, but it’s incredibly important, and I think in the conversations I’ve had here in Kyoto at IGF, the impact of AI developments as well in this area, it was already important, now it’s even more urgent, given the reality that many of the critical decisions around AI may come as a result of the work of technical standards setting bodies. So you referenced the report, and sorry, I just do want to thank, of course, the European Commission, Global Partners Digital, and ECNL for your incredible work in this area in convening us today. You mentioned the report that we did last year. I have with me my colleague, Eugene Kim, who is one of the primary drafters of that effort. We are grateful to the Human Rights Council for giving us a mandate to look at this issue. We had already done enough, but it gave us a real opportunity to look at the full landscape for standard setting and to see what are the challenges within it from a human rights perspective. And the first thing I need to say is that what we found, of course, is that it’s not a landscape that has just one actor or one type of actor. It’s a vast constellation of actors that are very diverse, various differences in terms of the standard setting organizations. They have different size, different working methods, and process seeds. What we found within them, of course, were a number of best practices, but also a number of challenges. And the challenges that we saw related to access, the difficulties with regards to working documents, proposals, meeting minutes, obviously problems with meaningful participation and transparency of working methods, language, technical knowledge, lack of financial and human resources to do some of the work that we’re looking for. One of the things that we focused on was the need for greater transparency and access to standard setting processes, making documentation accessible to the public, addressing the financial and cultural barriers to participation, and, of course, something that I think needs to be thought about much more seriously, including in this IGF forum, the need for inclusion of more diverse voices, including from women, youth, voices from the global majority, and those that have been historically marginalized. When we look at the landscape that I’ve just described, as I said, one of the key things is that we need to recognize that there can’t be a one-size-fits-all approach, that the standard setting bodies themselves are at different places, and we need to sort of look at how to move things forward for the different standard setting bodies. But it’s an urgent endeavor, as I said. What we’re trying to think about is really sort of a two-flank approach. The first flank is to really look at each standard setting body, work with them to see what are some of the best practices, what are the barriers, to access in their own institutions and work with and to put in place policies that are going to make it more uh easier to bring in human rights expertise in a variety of ways including of course civil society engagement as I just said but also from the academic community and and others. Uh and you know breaking down those barriers to access transparency is is a critical piece. The second piece of course though uh we we want the doors to be open but even when the doors are open there are still real obstacles to civil society and academia being able to engage effectively in these bodies. Um it requires these are labor intensive processes that go on for long periods of time. Uh a lot of work being done in person rather than remotely. Um and it requires uh resources and capacity to be able to do it. And the reality is these are bodies that are often dominated by large companies because they’re the ones that have the resources to be there. We need a level playing field and that will require real investment. If we think that civil society and academia have important voices within these fora then we need to find a way to resource it and make it happen as well. So we’re talking about what would it take, what types of funders might be able to better support civil society and academic engagement and and standard setting processes and we’re going to need that piece uh to be put in place as well. Um the good news is I think there’s a real appetite from the standard setting bodies that we talked to. They want to move forward on this. They understand that their credibility and effectiveness depends on better engagement with the communities that are affected by digital technologies. So we think there’s there’s room to move on these issues but to just leave everybody with the thought that it’s it’s an urgent endeavor and one that we need to take action on now. Thanks very much.

Moderator – Sheetal Kumar:
Thanks Peggy. That was great and I think we’re going to unpack a lot of that this morning. So just to quote from your report from the report um one one line which I think speaks to to to some of what you said. Technical standards reflect the interests values and concerns of those participating in their elaboration and so of course as these standards undergird um the the technologies and the the internet as it evolves um and thus um the the the rights of those who use them it is really important as you said to ensure that that the the engagement in them is is diverse. So I want to come next to um our first panelist um who is Natan Pascoalini who is a researcher at Data Privacy Brazil and is sitting on my on my left here um because you have done research um on exactly this question engagement in internet governance bodies and the and thank you Peggy for for joining us. I know um I know you had to to leave you have to leave. Thank you so much for making the time. Um so Natan this this report uh that you have uh worked on provides um real data and insights into the actual engagement in internet um governance bodies and stand standard setting. Really interested to hear now if you can keep it to three minutes that would be great. The top level insights from your research. Thank you.

Natam:
I’m working with Data Privacy Brazil, which is a non-profit civil society organization that deals with the promotion with the digital rights through a social justice lenses. And I believe that before talking about opportunities to engage, it’s important to highlight some of the challenges that CSOs face when trying to engage within technical standard-setting bodies. In March, we at Data Privacy Brazil submitted a contribution to the Human Rights Office call for inputs, and there we stated the need of such standard bodies to incorporate the discussion of human rights and human rights discussions and frameworks into the development of technical standards. However, to incorporate such discussions and frameworks, it’s necessary to enable the participation of CSOs and human rights experts in those bodies, which is limited, as Peggy said, due to several barriers related, for example, to lack of financial resources and lack of technical capacity building. And historically, these debates between the debates of technical standards and human rights usually occur separately, which impedes the integration of human rights and considerations into technical standard-setting processes. So since there is a lack of dialogue between those two areas, we need to advocate for a stakeholder approach so that it would help to improve the dialogue between standard-setting processes and human rights. It also appeared in this study that you mentioned and that we conducted on data privacy in Brazil. We designed this study with representatives from global southern organizations and we are launching this report today. The document will be available very soon. And this study is called Voices from the Global South, Perspectives on International Engagements and Digital Rights. It was supported by the National Endowment for Democracy and sheds light specifically on the active involvement of a carefully selected group of activists from the global south within international organizations. And going forward to the end, I promise I’m finishing, and in terms of opportunities of engagement, in this report we were able to identify that despite the challenges and barriers in general that CSOs face to engage with international standard-setting bodies, the processes that take place inside the UN, especially the IGF, are still key spaces, especially because the IGF is the only entirely open and multi-stakeholder space, which despite not making a binding decision, it’s conducive to creating capacity building and for technical community actors to bring their discussions to be debated with an open and fruitful space within the scope between human rights and probably and maybe standard-setting processes. So thank you, Chetan.

Moderator – Sheetal Kumar:
Okay, I will get this right at some point. So thank you, Natan. And I think what you’ve said also reflects a lot of what the OHCHR report outlined, but it’s very important to have that understanding from civil society as well on the ground trying to engage in these spaces. And I encourage everyone to look at that report that’s just been launched. So I’m now going to come. come over to Ava Ignatyshenko, who is head of Digital Standards and Internet Governance at the UK’s Department for Science, Innovation, and Technology. Ava, the UK has a strategy on standards engagement. How are you engaging on this topic of technical standards, internet standards, and human rights? And what do you think needs to be done to address the challenges we’ve heard, but also take advantage of the appetite and the interest in ensuring more diversity in this space?

Eva Ignatuschtschenko:
Thank you. Oh, it’s actually already on. There you go. And thank you to Global Partners Digital for setting up a session that is really important. And as you say, UK government is really committed to this agenda. And thank you for everybody who made it out this morning. I’m going to talk a little bit about the UK approach to this, and then leave you with three thoughts, which hopefully will spark a bit of discussion later as well. So the UK government, and I feel like I’m repeating myself, but maybe for some of you this is new, has a really long track record of engaging in technical standards internationally. Within that, supporting the multi-stakeholder and industry-led system as it is, ensuring there’s integrity and promoting human rights. So this is not new for us, but we’re very aware of the challenges. And within that, I think the inclusion in the development of standards is not an easy task. In the deployment process of standards, sometimes you see issues. But we have made a huge amount of progress over the last few years. I always like to think I made standards sexy for UK government, and I stand by that. And we’ve also embedded it in the G7 agreements. In 2021, the G7, for the first time, adopted an agreement and partnership on digital technical standards, which has a lot of human rights-relevant commitments of looking at internet protocols in particular, looking at inclusion, looking at standards that have wider societal impact, and how the G7 can engage in that and support the community. And as we already heard from OHCHR, SDOs are aware, standards bodies are aware, and they know it’s not a straightforward task. But there’s more that we need to do, despite the fact that standards bodies have woken up to the challenge. And especially from our perspective, it’s not always in the development of the standard. It often comes to the implementation, the deployment of the standard, where human rights play a role and where human rights abuses might happen. And you can think of a standard like facial recognition that is really important to protect privacy and might unlock your phone with that, but can equally be used by other regimes for mass surveillance. I wanna leave you now with three thoughts, because I’m conscious of time. First one is that we’re not starting with a blank sheet of paper. One of the issues OHCHR has when looking at this problem is there isn’t really any guidelines on human rights and technical standards. However, we do have the UN Principles on Business and Human Rights, and they. give good requirements and good baseline for businesses to consider human rights in their engagement in standards bodies and the development of standards. We should be building on those. Secondly, we really need a meaningful, and I do emphasize that word, meaningful way for human rights experts to engage. It’s a two-way street. Human rights experts need to start paying attention and start educating themselves, but importantly, also standards bodies need to become more open to them. The UK is doing a lot to engage civil society in particular, but also industry experts and coordinate with them on standards, including in the multi-stakeholder advisory group on internet governance in the UK, but also informal networks on organizations like Etsy, ITU, IETF. I’m sorry, I’m not spelling them out. What happens with standards bodies is you spell it out and it’s still, you’re no wiser, so I’m just gonna leave it there. And the last thought I want to leave you with, maybe a bit more provocative, is I really see AI, and I’m sure you’ve not heard anything about AI during this IGF, as an enabler of this discussion, because for the first time, what we’re seeing is that there’s a real recognition that ethics are a key part of what goes into developing technical standards in a new technology, and we hope that that could bring some lessons learned for the future for other technologies. I’ll leave it there. Thank you.

Moderator – Sheetal Kumar:
Thanks, thanks, Seva. That was really, really useful, I believe, and I’m excited to pick up some of those points in the open discussion and also invite you all to start thinking about your questions or how you’d like to engage once we’ve heard from our next two speakers. And the next speaker is online, so I hope we can connect to Vanessa Copetti Cravo, who is joining us online. She is Telecommunications Regulation Specialist at the Brazilian National Telecommunications Agency, ANATEL. Vanessa, are you able to unmute yourself and join us on the? Okay, there, we see you there. Excellent. I’m glad it’s working well. and all the standards are ensuring we can connect with you and hear what you have to say and to share about the experience of Anatel and engaging in standards organizations, but also in engaging a wide range of stakeholders in these discussions. Over to you.

Vanessa Cravo:
So thank you very much and good morning, good afternoon, good evening to all. So I think it’s important to highlight that Anatel has the legal mandate in Brazil to represent the country in the international telecommunications organizations and perhaps my experience that is most relevant to the session is the fact that I engage in the ITU, the International Telecommunications Agency for now more than 14 years. So I think it’s a pleasure to have this conversation and this is very relevant and in fact, as we have heard today, this matter become relevant every day that goes by. And why is that? It’s because our world and our lives have changed profoundly with all these technologies and they will continue to do so. We just heard about AI and they will continue to evolve, they will continue to develop. And there was a chase for leadership and this new and emerging technologies and they also have turned the standardization processes, the subject of our inter-new geopolitical battlefields. And this also exacerbate, highlight the disparities in the participation of, in the process and the fora. It’s not surprised that the global South lags behind in participation in these processes. Something also that was highlighted in the report of the Office of United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on this matter. And one of the challenges that Peggy has mentioned before. So at the same time that we recognize the unique representation, we also recognize that the processes define several different aspects of how we live. Communicate, interact. and no matter where or how you live. So, recognize that, but that the different voices are not being considered in shaping their own lives, something also that Sheetal has mentioned in the opening remarks. So, of course that through the history we have seen examples that standards that didn’t take into consideration human rights and one well-known example is the seatbelt that was designed to save men’s lives, but not women’s lives. So, the fact is that now standards have a completely different role in our societies. We live in an interdependent, connectional, digital society which lies upon technical standards, and we cannot wait until we discover that these standards are not designed for everyone and they can jeopardize women, for example, and other vulnerable groups to take some action. So, having said that, I think there is an agreement that the role of standards have completely changed and they demand a change on how we look and we consider these processes in these organizations. So, the real challenge is how to integrate the discussions within the framework and processes of standardization and Peggy also have highlighted quite a few challenges that we need to address. And so, Brazil has some reflections on this point and we have participated in discussions within the ITU framework about this and we see this as, of course, an opportunity for the improving of the working methods and, of course, we also take into consideration the challenges, but I think one very important thing is how to better integrate human rights perspective into the already existing processes. So, we believe that this discussion should be embedded in the cycles of the work of standardization and, for example, when we are talking about ITUT, we are talking of discussing these issues within the telecommunications and standardization sector. So, this is something very important and I think also something that we have seen is that we already seen some movement in this regard within ITU. And so, I think this is for the international perspective that we are looking forward to follow how this is going to evolve within ITU and, of course, engage in this matter and when we look internationally, what we have done in Brazil is we have set a framework structure to try to have a plural participation to ITU and other international organizations that ANATEL represent Brazil in. So, this is an open, a plural organization and we try to foster the discussion, but, of course, internationally we consider this as a challenge because it’s really difficult to engage. We try to engage academia, for example, for the last session of… the security lead group that address standardizations within ITU, we even were able to engage academia in this discussion, so it was the first time that we had a delegation that involved academia for this discussion, so we have seen this improvement as well, but it’s not easy because all the challenges, they also apply nationally, even if I try to engage nationally to build consensus to take this forward, so this will be my opening remarks and thank you very much.

Moderator – Sheetal Kumar:
Thank you very much and I think you spoke to some points that have been picked up before, that you picked up on some points from the discussion before that really I think illustrate the opportunities that there are for engaging stakeholders, you provided some examples of how Anatel is doing that and I think show us that we are largely at the beginning of many of these discussions and so for that reason, while there are challenges, there are also opportunities to leverage the interest and the appetite that Peggy spoke of, of ensuring human rights voices and perspectives are represented in standards discussions and forums. So Jessamine Passi, you are program officer at the Foundation for Media Alternatives or FMA in the Philippines and really would be interested to hear from you, picking up on these discussions about how in practice it is, what it is like to engage in these discussions as a civil society organization, if you can share how you have faced some of those challenges in trying to engage in these discussions, bring that human rights perspective and perhaps if you have some recommendations for how things can

Jessamine Pacis:
improve. Thank you. Thank you, thank you Chital and good morning everyone. So I think from the previous discussions, it appears that we’re all in agreement that there is an issue of access in these spaces right and I think that’s great. I don’t want to repeat everything that Peggy and Nathan have already said, because I think the OHHR report and Peggy earlier also summed up the challenges quite well. So, there’s not a lot of CSO participation in standard setting processes because they are very resource intensive. It takes, there are travel costs, there are membership and participation costs, and it takes a lot of time and energy. And I think just one thing that I wanted to highlight is that these are labor intensive, these are resource intensive, because it’s not just enough to participate in these spaces. We have to participate meaningfully. And this means, because like engaging in these processes is not just a one-off thing, right? You have to really continue engagement for a prolonged period of time, and not a lot of CSOs have not only the access to these spaces, but also like the resources to sustain this kind of work and this kind of engagement for a period of time. I think one thing that has worked with FMA in the past and one thing that we’re also trying to do now is being able to access spaces such as the ITU and the ICANN and the IETF through working with the government, specifically our Department of ICT as well as our National Telecommunications Commission, because these agencies are often more able to access these spaces as part of the national delegation. So our previous speakers already mentioned the importance of the multi-stakeholder process, but I think we should also emphasize the fact that this process should also start within the national level, so it’s not important just with the global level, but it has to start with our own countries as well. Of course, there are also challenges with this kind of strategy, working with the government. Of course, there is constantly fluctuating leadership, the officials and the leaders are replaced every once in a while, especially with ministry-level agencies. And in the Philippines, for example, there were some moments in the past when the Department of ICT and the National Telecommunications Commission were active in participating in global standards-setting processes, but again, because the people in the government changed. over time, the agenda changes as well, the priorities change, so the level of engagement also changes over time. I was telling Chital yesterday that currently I think it’s been more than a decade that the Philippines has not had a representative to the ICANN GAC, which reflects the kind of the level of priority and the level of engagement that the government has right now. So yeah, so now the department is in process of coming up with a new digital strategy and new strategic vision for them, so we are, as FMA, as part of civil society, we are trying to reach out to the government to put engagement in these standard-setting processes back on their agenda and in their priorities as well, and open conversations on internet governance and internet fragmentation and related issues with them as well. Thank you.

Moderator – Sheetal Kumar:
Thank you. Thank you so much, and as you were speaking, I thought it was interesting that you remarked on the need for that general agenda-setting and prioritization of the issue, which Eva, you shared some considerations from the UK government and the approach of having a strategy and having this sort of, I suppose, more longer-term and more embedded approach, which then provides for that ability, I think, to ensure continuity in engagement despite changes in administration, for example. So that’s one area we can explore in the open discussion, but as I mentioned, we are co-organizing this session with the European Commission and in the Department for International Partnerships in particular, so I wanted to check if any representative wanted to come in at this point and reflect. Yes, please, please do come, and if you want to use that mic, that is absolutely fine. Thank you so much.

Peter Marien:
Thank you very much, Peter Marien, European Commission. international partnerships. Thank you very much indeed for organizing this interesting discussion and exchange of information. So we welcome the report by OHCHR on human rights and digital standard setting and it describes well how some proposals for technical standards can actually turn into standards which undermine the usage of Internet in a way that respects the rights as we see them reflected in the fundamental charters for example the UN Charter on Human Rights. So as you all know there have been standards proposed in the past which in our opinion can also lead to fragmentation of the Internet or you know quite severe implications for privacy. So the report is specifically relevant for the standard setting organizations and we hope that these organizations will take them duly into account. We also appreciate very much the close cooperation the dialogue between OHCHR and the ITU especially the recent changes also in ITU. Now of course it’s important that these high-level I would say commitments exchanges that have taken place but also the recommendations that have been made in the report that these of course trickle down into the actual work at the technical level working groups and hopefully indeed that other stakeholders as has been mentioned here will gradually be able to be involved even more in these sometimes technical and difficult environments difficult access as was explained by by the speakers. So on our side we are happy at the European Commission to contribute to this process to this reinforcement of the links between the human rights and standard settings and we’re actually happy to announce a new cooperation on this field between Commission and OHCHR and also later today we will be announcing this in another session. Maybe I’d like to finish just with it with a question would be interesting if people in the room or on the panel or online would have any information about concrete steps that might already have been taken or are being planned following this

Moderator – Sheetal Kumar:
report if any. Thank you very much. Thank you for coming and for also being a co-organizer of this of this session. So we can start with your question. I also have another another few questions for those of us here in the room and also online. Do you have experience engaging in technical standard-setting organizations or are you implementing or actioning any of the recommendations in the OHCHR report and how do you see this work going forward? I think we’ve heard a lot of optimism about the opportunities that could it can exist as long as the challenges that we have identified and agreed on that do exist for human rights perspectives and more diverse perspectives to be represented in standards forums are overcome. So do you have further recommendations or ideas for how to overcome those? I think as I said we identified the challenges and there are recommendations in the report but are there any… any other recommendations that you may have based on your experience. So, that is how we will start the open discussion because we’ve got about 15 minutes to hear from you all. The way that, okay, I already see some hands, I’d like to do this is to see whether there are hands. I’ve seen one, I’ve seen, okay, I’ve seen two. And then I’ll take those two questions first and see whether panelists want to respond. And I’ll also keep an eye on the online moderator and whether there’s anything there. But please do feel free to respond to what the panelists have said as well or just bring your own perspectives to the discussion. So, we’ll start with a question or reflection here. Please introduce yourself and then ask your question or share your reflection. Thank you.

Andrew Campling:
Yeah, this is on, good. Good morning, my name’s Andrew Campling. I run a public policy consultancy and certainly get involved with internet standards mainly around the ITF. And from that, I’d reflect that new internet standards and changing to existing ones have absolutely have significant implications for public policy. However, diversity in the standards bodies is a major problem on pretty much every axis. So, for example, in the ITF, it’s about 10% female. It’s equally underrepresented on geographic axes, ethnicity, age. I could go on, you get the right understanding. Part of the problem is, certainly within the ITF, it’s not a multi-stakeholder process. So, it’s purely led by the sort of technical community. Now, that might seem reasonable, but that means that a very narrow point of view is represented by those that do engage in the development of standards. And those few CSOs that are involved are often supported by funding by tech companies themselves represent a pretty narrow segment of civil society. There’s also, by the way, a low involvement. involvement of governments and their agencies, including, dare I say it, the European Commission and European Member States, are almost entirely absent from the discussions, and end users are not even in the room. Because of that lack of diversity, and therefore lack of diversity of thought, that leads to problems with the culture of the community, and also affects the quality of the standards and the type of standards that are actually produced. So we will get better outcomes if we have a more diverse community working on the problems. So in my view, we need to fix this problem if we’re going to make the internet better. We’ve got to find a way to integrate multi-stakeholders into the standards process, and I would suggest one way of doing that is to measure the diversity of the different standards bodies and publish the stats regularly to hold them to account to do better. So I’ll leave that thought with you, but if anyone wants to discuss it after this, happy to do so.

Moderator – Sheetal Kumar:
Thank you. And if we have anyone here who is doing some of that work, please feel free to share your work, your research. Natan already shared some of that research that is being done, and it would be interesting to hear from others as well. Thanks, Andrew, for that contribution. We have two here. Please go ahead.

Ignacio Castro:
Thank you. My name is Ignacio Castro, and I’m a lecturer in Queen Mary University of London, and I also chair a research group at the IRTF on analyzing standardization processes, in particular ITF and W3C. And what I wanted to say is pretty much related to what the last colleague has said, and the colleague from the European Commission and one of the other speakers. The question is how are we going to resolve the conundrum of the fact that technical standards are complex, they are technical, and that’s unavoidable. And we can be aspirational, and we can desire things to be in one way or the other, but we cannot avoid the fact that at the end of the day, these things are quite complicated. And I can actually tell you that from my research, it’s getting even more complicated. A draft now takes about three years, since the first draft until it’s published. It involves more areas, it involves more people, more countries, and more companies. All this makes things more complicated. Monitoring this is difficult, even if you know about the technical complexities. Many of the Internet of Standard Bodies are open, they are very open, but open doesn’t mean accessible. Accessible is only for those who understand, have the time and the energy, as one of the colleagues has said. And this is something that is quite difficult to challenge. And even though I pretty much agree with what everyone has said, I haven’t heard anything that helps to walk towards a solution. So I’m sorry, I don’t have a good answer. And I think that the work that we are doing in providing analysis is helpful, because as I said, these bodies are open, but they are not accessible. they are not accessible because they are complicated and doing research in this direction, I think it can help. But I think it also takes an effort from other communities that want to engage that acknowledging the fact that they might not have the technical background is necessary. They are not gonna be able to engage with technical people otherwise. Some technical people also needs probably to walk a little bit towards the other side, but the space in the middle, it’s quite wide. And I would really be looking forward to hear how people think that this space can be a bridge.

Moderator – Sheetal Kumar:
Okay, thank you for that. I think that work is beginning. It started in some spaces and there are some examples, for example, at the IETF, the Human Rights Protocol Considerations Group has been starting that work. And in the OHCHR report, there are recommendations, for example, that standards organizations put in place adequate human rights due diligence processes. And there are frameworks to support that. I think Eva, you pointed out how the UN guiding principles and business and human rights can also be used as a framework. So those are just some of my reflections. We’re very keen to hear from panelists on the in terms of responding to how, the how, how can we do this better, even if we are just starting out. So Vittoria, you and then if there’s anyone else who wants to come in, please do. But after you, I will come to the panelists who want to respond to those questions, including from Ignacio on what do we do and how do we do it question. Thank you.

Vittorio Bertola:
Yeah, thank you. I’m Vittoria Bertola from Open Exchange. And first, I want to support the two previous comments. I already said a lot of what I wanted to say. And I must say that being one of the people that 20, 25 years ago were involved in designing the multi-stakeholder model coming up with it. First at ICANN, then the IGF, but we overlooked the importance maybe of the standard setting organizations. So maybe this is the time where we have to really do something to make the multi-stakeholder as well. But at the same time, I was a bit surprised. I mean, I came here because of the title. I hadn’t read the report. So the title is about internal standards, but a lot of discussions about the ITU, which doesn’t do internal standards. So I think we should maybe focus on more on the ITF and W3C, the places where. And given the way the internet works, on the internet, the first you invent and deploy technology and then you standardize it. So you’re always catching up. And this is not going to change. So there is a need for an additional effort to be there even before things get to the standardization phase of the process. And this is also something that should be demanded to the industry. But what I wanted to add is that it’s not just a matter of money and bringing people, being able, and bringing people with the good skills, engineers. You need people that understand the technical part. But then there is a mindset problem. I mean, even the HRPC committee, which was mentioned, it does bring a human rights perspective, but it is a very narrow human rights perspective, mostly dominated by, I’d say, freedom of expression from the global north. in the type of human rights perspective you get. There’s not a lot of people from the global south that there are no other human rights. When people come with other, talking about rights of other groups, or like it happened with the children’s rights, for example, they are mostly basically sent away and say, no, we don’t want you, or we don’t care about you. We think that freedom of expression is a top right. And this is widely shared by the engineering community. So there’s also to educate the community to be more open in the view of the human rights they have.

Moderator – Sheetal Kumar:
Yes, absolutely. So we have a few points there about, well, enforcing the issue on diversity, suggesting more research is done. A question about the challenge of complexity. How do we deal with that? And some also reflections at the end there. I think to the point, again, that diversity is an issue, and resourcing is a challenge. How do we make those connections happen between the human rights community, making that more diverse as well, ensuring that the human rights perspectives are also diverse. So lots of questions about how do we actually change the situation relating to the challenges. Etta, Ava, Jess, or indeed Vanessa online, do you have any responses to those?

Vanessa Cravo:
Can I go?

Moderator – Sheetal Kumar:
Please do.

Vanessa Cravo:
Sorry. So thank you very much. I think the previous comment was quite interesting. I’m very aware that we have all this discussion about what ITU does or does not regarding its mandate on related to the internet. So I’m not going to get into this conversation. Otherwise you’re gonna need some hours to address this issue. That’s not the point. But the fact is, and the report is on this, and all this digital technology, it’s much broader and all this emerging and new technologies, they are shaping our lives. And if you go to the standardization sector of ITU, and you take a look of the discussions they’re having and the items of study, there is going to produce recommendations and standards you’re going to see that much of discussions applied also to ITU. So there is no wrong here role for ITU in this discussion. But I just wanna make one comment. When usually we are comparing standard organizations, usually one of the biggest questions is regarding openness. And I think the previous three comments were right on the spot. To say that a standardization organization is open doesn’t mean that people can. really engage on that. And you’re going to have a multistakeholder discussion and a multistakeholder standard processes and a process that is going to have all the voices heard and take it to consideration. I think this is quite important that we have very clear in our minds. And this is something that always appear when we are having this conversation. So I think one useful exercise would be also to map all the standard organizations because they have different scopes and different levels of openness and different level of participation. And to map how this discussion of the integration, the need to embed human rights into their processes is being held because we have organizations that are poorly market-led organizations and we have others with different kinds of stakeholders. So I think this could be a useful exercise for us. Thank you.

Moderator – Sheetal Kumar:
Hello, yes, that’s working. Thanks so much, Vanessa. And also for that recommendation for perhaps bringing more clarity and understanding to what is already happening in standards organizations. And I wanted to turn to Eva because I know that you wanted to respond to the questions around what we do and also Vint. Would you like to, would you like to answer? Oh, I’m sorry. I don’t, I didn’t see that. Please do take the mic there or I can hand you this one. Oh, you have one there, great.

Vint Cerf:
How many engineers does it take to turn on a microphone? First of all, this is a very important discussion. I’m going to suggest that at least a thought exercise, I’m not necessarily arguing we should actually do this, but it’s tempting. Imagine that you take Universal Declaration of Human Rights and for each one of the ones that’s articulated, ask ourselves what kinds of standards are needed to realize those rights. There’s a broad category of accessibility and that covers everything for all practical purposes. If you look at today’s world and you ask yourself, how do people find out about things that are rights related? An awful lot of it is online. And if you don’t have access to that online facility or if you don’t have accessibility features, then you are denied access to that information. That’s a big, broad category. And along those lines, just speaking about accessibility, the one thing I have found is that standards don’t necessarily get implemented or they’re not, the people who are trying to implement to the standards don’t necessarily have a lot of intuition about how to do that because they haven’t experienced the use of, for example, screen readers and things like that. So I’m finding that the best way to help engineers and user interface developers develop an intuition for this is to give them examples of what works and what doesn’t work and show them the differences. And after a while, you begin to develop an intuition for what does work and what doesn’t work. There are a lot of places around the world that focus on accessibility and technology for that. And I would urge you to prepare whatever documentation you can out of this session and make that as visible as possible just to draw more attention. Let me just bring up one other thing about justice and the access to it. There have been a number of studies pointing out that in the absence of access to online facilities, including accessibility, people do not have access to the justice system. And so this exercise of going through the declaration might turn out to help us identify where we have gaps and where we could do more work. Thank you.

Moderator – Sheetal Kumar:
For that very, very helpful suggestions for what can be done to advance the understanding of different communities. And I think we can pick those up in the hallways. And I think that’s what’s exciting about this discussion is it’s just starting. So we have two points here. If you can make them quick, we’ll then have to wrap up. But thank you.

Yog Desai:
Hi, Yog Desai, Internet Society Youth Ambassador. I think when it comes to increasing participation, especially from the global South, the biggest barrier is funding because being present in the room is very important. And it’s also not something that’s going to happen if you just send people once. This has to happen again and again because it takes time to socialize into the system. And again, the interest behind the funding also matter because for instance, the Indian government is coming up with a program through which they will. send people to these standardization organizations, but of course the people that they are sending will be representing the interests of the Indian government. So if we want the civil society to be present there, we will need funding that has interests of the broader community in mind. And I want to, well it’s not a question, but I would like, as a social science researcher interested in standardization, I wanted to understand from the room what is the call to action for social science researchers in the standardization domain. Thank you.

Colin Perkins:
Thank you. Please. Hi, my name is Colin Perkins. I work at the University of Glasgow and I’m the chair of the IRTF. I think there’s been a bunch of good points made. I especially agree that funding is a challenge for a number of people to participate in standards development. It’s a challenge I’ve been facing as an academic for many years trying to participate in this area. I think there are practical steps that can be made. Not all SDOs have large membership fees. There are a number of SDOs, ITF included, that provide extensive and very cheap remote participation options. Of course, remote participation is not as effective as being in the room, but it’s a lot better than not being there. And there are people who can and do participate effectively via the video conferencing, via the email discussions, via the various other discussion forums. In the ITF community, we also have groups like the Human Rights Group, Human Rights Protocol Considerations Group, that’s been mentioned, and that has been running for the past decade or so. We’ve got the Research into Standardization, Standards Development Processes Group, which Ignacio, who spoke earlier, chairs, which is looking at the effectiveness of the process. We have a number of ITF-led diversity initiatives to try and improve diversity. These are having some effect. If you look at the ITF, for example, the diversity has increased significantly over time. Twenty years ago, if you look at the RFCs being published, 75% were from North America. Now that’s down to approximately 40%. The number of RFCs being published, the number of standards being published by people from Europe, from Asia, has doubled over the last 20 years. Clearly, we have a way to go, right? Clearly, the number of people from South America, from Africa, is not as high as we would like. The participation from women is not as high as we would like, but there is a recognition of this. I do have to ask you to close here. To close, I think as Ignacio said, engagement requires time and effort. With the best will in the world, developing the necessary expertise takes time.

Moderator – Sheetal Kumar:
Yes, and actually, I think that’s one of the key points that we’ve been hearing here, is there are a number of areas where progress is being seen. There are many opportunities, there are many challenges, but at least we know what those challenges are. As a colleague from the European Commission also said, there are efforts to start implementing the recommendations from the report already underway. I wanted to come to Eva very quickly for 30 seconds, and then I’m going to come to Vanessa as well, and then we will wrap up. I know we are over time. Eva.

Eva Ignatuschtschenko:
Thank you. I’m trying to be quick. I think a bit of optimism. We are talking about dozens of standards bodies, hundreds, thousands of working groups, and then standards being developed. However, we believe that the majority of those will not have human rights implications, so we don’t need to worry about all of them possibly being used for human rights breaches. But it’s actually a small proportion of that that we’re worried about, and that’s where we need to engage. So I think the landscape doesn’t… it’s not as scary as it might look from outside. Three points to respond to this point on what sort of practical actions we can take. What we’re doing is we are teaching our own staff members and bringing in technical experts, engineers into government, where you have the resources as an organization, do that. And that sort of solves one of some of the problems raised. Secondly, with the best will in the world and with anything that we can do, all the funding that we throw at it, we will not be able to get all the CSOs in the room. So working together, being able to work through proxies, and we’ve had some really good experiences on people doing that for some encryption standards is really, really important. And I think that’s one of the solutions moving forward. I think if you show up as one individual from a civil society organizations, it’s going to be really hard because of all the reasons that we mentioned in this. But if you work together, you might be able to have a voice and you might be able to share expertise and share that sort of technical knowledge.

Moderator – Sheetal Kumar:
Thank you. And we had a colleague from Article 19, the civil society organization, also shared the work that they’ve done in mapping standards organizations, which is a particularly useful resource. So it’s called the Internet Standards Almanac. Please do consider looking at that. It’s a great introduction to standards organizations, particularly for civil society organizations looking to engage. Vanessa, I’ll give you 30 seconds.

Vanessa Cravo:
Thank you very much. So just one final comment. One possible way to go for civil society organizations is to look for the delegations of your national government that maybe it’s maybe a room for also to exploit participation and engaging within your national delegations to all this kind of fora we have for Philippines. And also Brazil also is something that we do and many other countries do that. This could be an option of starting engaging and getting to know this forum without having to pay fees, for example, for the ones that demand membership fees and all this kind of barriers. So thank you.

Moderator – Sheetal Kumar:
Thank you. So I wanted to end now with a optimistic note. We do have the report from the Office of the Human Rights Commissioner. We have all of these ideas and we do have, I think it sounds like consensus. Is it rough consensus or is it consensus that there are challenges to engaging in standards organizations, to reflecting a diversity of views and to ensuring human rights perspectives are reflected in standards development and implementation? We agree that that needs to change and there are a set of recommendations both in the report and we’ve heard some in the room here to change that. So I hope that this for many of us has been a start to what will be a path to that change. Please do ensure that you make the connections here with others and online and there is an IETF session happening at one today as well so connecting the dots between these different discussions is going to be important and I look forward to continuing this important discussion and implementing some of the ideas and the recommendations that have come from here. And thank you also to the. panelists who have made the time to be here and also to the co-organizers of this session. I hope that you have a great rest of the IGF and also I really look forward as I said to continuing this discussion with you afterwards. Thank you.

Rodney Taylor

During the discussion, several important topics were addressed, including the Global Digital Cooperation (GDC), internet governance, and the challenges faced by Small Island Developing Countries (SIDS) in actively participating in ongoing processes.

One of the main concerns raised was the limited resources, both financial and human, that hinder the active participation of SIDS in these processes. This constraint prevents SIDS from fully engaging in discussions and decision-making. Additionally, barriers to entry still exist despite the multi-stakeholder nature of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), which theoretically allows participation from all stakeholders. These barriers may include technical expertise or access to necessary resources.

Another topic of discussion was the value proposition of the investment in the IGF. Some participants questioned whether the IGF, being a place for discussion and networking, actually leads to actionable outcomes. It was argued that although the IGF provides a platform for dialogue, it does not necessarily result in concrete actions or solutions. This raised concerns about the effectiveness of the IGF and its ability to address pressing global challenges.

A key distinction was highlighted between the United Nations (UN) and multistakeholder forums. It was noted that countries have more influence in the UN, where the priority is given to member states’ interventions. On the other hand, in multistakeholder forums like the IGF, all attendees are considered equal, providing an opportunity for greater inclusivity and diverse perspectives. This observation emphasized the different dynamics and power structures between the two approaches.

Despite the challenges and questions raised, there was a general sense of positivity towards the Global Digital Cooperation (GDC). Participants expressed hopes that the GDC would lead to positive outcomes and address the complex issues discussed in the IGF process. However, skepticism was also voiced regarding the GDC’s ability to effectively tackle these complex issues, especially within the context of global collaboration on internet-related matters.

It was acknowledged that the GDC could provide a platform for small states, such as SIDS, to have a stronger voice in global digital cooperation. However, participants recognized that attaining positive outcomes in these forums would be challenging due to various factors, such as the limited capacity of small states to actively participate and support the GDC.

The potential of the GDC to address digital inequality, especially in SIDS, was highlighted. It was noted that approximately 2 billion people, mostly in developing and small island developing countries, are still not connected to the internet. The GDC was seen as an opportunity to focus on these issues and improve connectivity and digital infrastructure in these regions.

The focus and scope of the GDC were discussed, particularly in relation to cybersecurity and artificial intelligence. The GDC was expected to play a role in addressing these global key issues and potentially leading to an expansion of the IGF’s role or the creation of a new process to tackle these specific challenges.

There were concerns raised about the duplication of processes and internet governance fragmentation. Some participants argued that there may not be a need to create a new process focused solely on digital issues, as this could lead to further fragmentation in internet governance. It was suggested that efforts should be made to avoid duplication and instead strengthen existing processes.

The implementation of global cybersecurity norms was highlighted as the responsibility of national parliaments and local authorities. It was emphasized that discussed global agreements should be actioned at the local level to implement mutually agreed norms for routing cybersecurity. This observation emphasized the need for concrete action and implementation at the national and local levels, rather than relying solely on global conversations and agreements.

In conclusion, the discussion covered various important aspects of the GDC, internet governance, and the challenges faced by SIDS in actively participating in ongoing processes. While there were concerns raised and questions about the efficacy of some processes, there was also a sense of optimism for the GDC’s potential to address global issues and promote digital cooperation. The need for inclusivity, concrete actions, and the implementation of agreed norms were recurring themes throughout the discussion.

Sorina Teleanu

The discussion revolves around the challenges faced by countries in keeping up with the complexities and rapid evolution of digital diplomacy and Internet policies. It is overwhelming for both small and large countries to contribute meaningfully and keep pace with these intricate issues. The lack of capacity to become experts in all aspects of Internet governance is a major hurdle for countries.

The Internet Governance Forum (IGF) has played a partial role in mitigating these challenges. It serves as a platform where people collectively learn from each other, but there is room for improvement. However, the IGF and the Global Digital Cooperation (GDC) serve different functions. Therefore, direct comparison between the two is not appropriate. The GDC, on the other hand, holds promise and potential to address the challenges faced in the realm of digital diplomacy and Internet policies.

One of the significant challenges highlighted in the discussion is the limited participation of governments in the IGF. This poses a hurdle to the effective implementation of Internet policies. The GDC aims to address this challenge and provide a platform for discussing digital governance and reducing inequality.

The discussion also stresses the importance of considering past events, such as resolutions and outcomes from the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) and United Nations General Assembly (UNGA), which can be built upon. The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) rely, in part, on technology for development. The GDC should take into account these previous events and avoid reinventing the wheel.

A forward-looking GDC is seen as a potential solution to address digital inequalities. It is viewed as a mechanism that can work in harmony with the IGF to strengthen global digital governance. Many people have endorsed the concept of ‘IGF Plus’, which suggests that the GDC could serve as a follow-up mechanism for the IGF.

In terms of resource availability, stakeholders must consider the multiple processes and issues involved in Internet governance. Collaboration rather than competition for resources is considered essential for effective implementation.

In conclusion, the discussion unveils the challenges faced by countries in keeping up with digital diplomacy and Internet policies. The IGF has made some progress in mitigating these challenges, but the GDC shows potential to address them. The GDC and the IGF serve different purposes and should not be directly compared. The GDC should build on and strengthen the IGF to foster global digital cooperation. Stakeholders must consider resource availability and find ways to collaborate effectively.

Otis Osbourne

The analysis reveals several insightful points discussed by the speakers. One key issue raised is the economic barriers faced by small island developing states in their digital transformation and access efforts. These states are hindered by a lack of trust in digital transactions, which is a major concern for small to medium-sized business service providers and consumers. This lack of trust could potentially limit the growth and adoption of digital technologies in these states.

Another important point highlighted is the need for national Internet Governance Forums (IGFs) to guide initiatives on the ground. It is noted that some countries, such as Jamaica, do not have national IGFs. The absence of these forums could impede the progress of internet governance and hinder the development of policies that promote an inclusive and accessible digital environment.

The analysis also acknowledges that small island developing states are progressing at a slow pace in transitioning to the new digital global economy. This transition is crucial for these states to effectively participate in the interconnected world and leverage the benefits of the digital economy. The need for adequate support and resources to propel this transition is highlighted as an important concern.

Furthermore, the speakers emphasize the recognition of universal access to free internet as a human right, particularly for facilitating e-governance and reducing social exclusion. They argue that without data access on their phones, individuals are unable to access e-governance services. Thus, governments are urged to acknowledge free internet as a fundamental right to ensure equal access opportunities and promote inclusive digital societies.

The importance of online security, privacy, and safety is also emphasized, and it is noted that these aspects must be prioritized alongside the recognition of free internet as a human right. However, the analysis does not provide specific evidence or examples to support this point.

Regarding the implementation of best practices in securing the internet, it is highlighted that despite discussions in IGFs, most Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and network operators have not adopted the necessary actions to secure data being routed through the internet. Additionally, many organizations, including NDAs, Ministries, Departments, Agencies, SMEs, financial, and educational institutions, have not implemented cost-free DNSSEC and IPv6 standards. This lack of tangible implementation raises concerns about the effectiveness of IGF discussions in shaping concrete and practical outcomes.

The Global Digital Compact (GDC) is seen as a potential solution that could address the shortcomings of the IGF. While no specific details or evidence are provided to support this viewpoint, the speakers express optimism about the GDC’s ability to enforce successful internet practices.

It is also noted that UN directives hold power and influence, and governments are expected to eventually follow through, particularly in the domain of the digital economy for realizing the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). This indicates the significance of international cooperation and collaboration in driving digital transformation and achieving the SDGs.

Further observations highlight the exclusive nature of discussions at the UN level, suggesting that they may be out of touch with grassroots realities. This excludes start-up entrepreneurs and university students from directly accessing or relating to the discussions. It is argued that more efforts should be made to make UN discussions more accessible and relatable to these groups.

Despite the potential overlap with the GDC, the speakers reaffirm the continued relevance of the IGF due to its unique reach from grassroots to corporations. The IGF’s focus on Internet Governance is seen as a clear indication of its purpose and provides a platform for individuals and small to medium-sized businesses to actively participate and gain a better understanding of internet governance issues.

In conclusion, the analysis explores various aspects of digital transformation, internet governance, and the challenges faced by small island developing states. It highlights the economic barriers, the need for national IGFs, the slow pace of transitioning to the digital global economy, the recognition of free internet as a human right, the importance of online security, and the potential of the Global Digital Compact. The analysis also discusses the power of UN directives, the exclusivity of UN discussions, and reaffirms the relevance of the IGF.

Tracy Hackshaw

The Global Digital Cooperation (GDC) initiative has the potential to positively impact digital governance and address global inequalities faced by Small Island Developing States (SIDS). The GDC aims to establish a global framework for digital cooperation and promote a more inclusive and equitable digital world, especially for SIDS. SIDS encounter challenges in prioritising internet governance due to limited resources and attention as they grapple with significant issues such as climate change and economic challenges.

One of the key arguments in support of the GDC is that it can provide a platform for SIDS to have their voices heard. Existing forums like the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and regional spaces like LAC, AP, and Africa do not adequately emphasise the representation and voice of SIDS. This results in SIDS feeling marginalised, and their concerns not receiving the attention they deserve within the digital governance discourse. The GDC process could provide a more equitable platform for SIDS to contribute their perspectives and address their specific issues.

Moreover, SIDS face challenges in resource allocation and attention towards internet governance. These challenges arise because SIDS have competing priorities that include climate change adaptation, infrastructural issues, and economic development. As a result, internet policy issues and digital issues do not receive much priority. The GDC could play a crucial role in mitigating these challenges by collaborating with governments and prioritising capacity development, knowledge transfer, and addressing the digital divide. This includes actively engaging with SIDS governments and communities to understand their needs and working towards real skills and knowledge transfer.

Another important point worth noting is the emphasis on the digital divide. While digital technologies have the potential to bridge gaps and create opportunities, it is essential to recognise that not everyone is connected. The digital divide persists, and assumptions cannot be made that connectivity is universal. The GDC process must take this into account and work towards addressing the digital divide by ensuring accessibility and connectivity for all.

In conclusion, there is optimism and support for the GDC and its potential positive impact on SIDS. The GDC’s aim to establish a global framework for digital cooperation and promote an inclusive and equitable digital world resonates with the challenges faced by SIDS in prioritising internet governance and addressing global inequalities. By providing a platform for SIDS to have their voices heard, collaborating with governments, and focusing on capacity development and knowledge transfer, the GDC process can contribute significantly to addressing these issues. It is crucial to recognise the unique needs and perspectives of SIDS and actively work towards creating an inclusive digital world for all.

Quintin Chou-Lambert

The analysis explores different perspectives on Internet governance and the Global Digital Compact (GDC). One argument raised is that the approach taken by the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) can overwhelm participants with an excessive number of meetings. Delegations in New York are already burdened with various other issues, and the urgency of Internet governance matters can be pushed down as a result. On the other hand, it is argued that the IGF holds significant value in facilitating networking and information exchange. By bringing people together, the IGF helps them better understand Internet governance issues. Networking and exchange are becoming increasingly important, especially considering the challenging political conditions.

Furthermore, the analysis suggests that developing countries, landlocked countries, and least developed countries may need to unite and express their concerns collectively in the global process. Internet governance challenges and the way the IGF addresses them are common in these countries. This unity can enable them to have a stronger voice in shaping global policies.

The GDC is highlighted as an opportunity for Small Island Developing States (SIDS) and other nations to address their specific concerns regarding the use of digital technologies and data. The GDC will assemble leaders to make decisions on global digital issues, providing a platform for SIDS to voice their concerns and benefit from digital advancements.

The rise of new technologies, such as artificial intelligence (AI) and data, has raised concerns about safety, monetisation, and inclusivity. The GDC offers a platform to address these issues at a high level. It becomes crucial to ensure safety while harnessing the benefits of these technologies on a global scale.

It is argued that the GDC should reconcile the goal of globally spreading the benefits of new technologies, while ensuring safety and inclusivity. The GDC will bring leaders together to make these important decisions and presents an opportunity to update the focus and ambition in utilising these technologies.

Challenges within the IGF include the absence of decision-making and a vast capacity gap, making it difficult to keep track of everything happening in the digital technology landscape. There are also questions about whether the GDC can effectively address these challenges.

The GDC is seen as an opportunity for the digital economy to grow and evolve. The Secretary-General emphasises the importance of a unified and ambitious GDC. It also allows for debates on how countries can adapt their digital architectures in the future.

The analysis highlights the critical need for countries to consider the significance of the digital transition and its potential for growth. Many delegations are observed to be overstretched in their capacity, making it essential for countries to look beyond immediate crises and envision a digital future.

Reviewing and following up on GDC commitments is deemed important, but questions remain about the extent to which governments can participate in these follow-ups.

To address gaps in existing digital governance, the creation of a Digital Cooperation Forum is proposed by the Secretary-General. This digital governance platform would pool emerging internet governance issues, ultimately saving resources and efforts. Implementing a central place for countries to discuss digital governance issues would allow them to focus holistically on digital governance and defragment governance efforts.

It is emphasised that while bringing politicised discussions to digital governance platforms can change their nature and spirit, it is vital to safeguard the unique character and spirit of various digital governance platforms. This can enable free and creative discussions.

Lastly, raising the voices of different groupings in the GDC process is seen as crucial. Voicing the interests of various groups can lead to better reflecting their interests in the outcome document.

In summary, the analysis presents diverse opinions on Internet governance and the GDC. It highlights the challenges and benefits of the IGF and emphasises the need for unity among developing countries. The GDC offers an opportunity for SIDS and other nations to address their digital concerns. The analysis also explores the concerns surrounding new technologies and the importance of safety and inclusivity. Challenges within the IGF are discussed, as well as the GDC’s potential to foster the growth of the digital economy. The significance of considering the digital transition and reviewing GDC commitments is stressed. The proposal for a Digital Cooperation Forum to address gaps in digital governance is mentioned, along with the importance of preserving the unique character of various digital governance platforms. Finally, the importance of raising the voices of different groups in the GDC process is highlighted.

Audience

The annual meetings featured a range of speakers who shared their perspectives on various topics. Carol, the new MAG chair from the Bahamas, emphasised the significance of taking strong actions to achieve desired outcomes. It was highlighted that robust actions are necessary to accomplish the goals effectively. This emphasised the importance of prioritising action-oriented approaches in order to make progress.

One of the main concerns discussed was the need for capacity building among parliamentarians and missions. It was noted that there is often a lack of understanding due to limited technical and domain knowledge. To address this issue, there was an emphasis on the importance of providing funding and support for capacity building initiatives, particularly through the IGF.

Carol also encouraged active involvement and feedback from the audience. She urged participants to provide their thoughts and feedback in a written format for higher authorities to consider. This inclusive participation was seen as crucial for creating a more transparent and participatory decision-making process.

In terms of policy-making, Carol expressed the belief that relevant departments should be empowered and involved in decision-making processes. She criticised the practice of relevant departments receiving meeting notes only when it is time for the government to make decisions. This approach was considered unfair, as it prevents these departments from having a comprehensive understanding of the issues.

The discussions on digital transformation revealed gaps and challenges in implementation. Sri Lanka, for example, has implemented digital strategies for the past two decades, but many gaps remain. There is a lack of clarification and guidance on who should be responsible for driving digital transformation initiatives. Therefore, it was argued that there is a need for developing frameworks or best practice guidelines to provide direction and ensure efficient implementation.

The importance of citizen satisfaction and establishing citizen-centric governments was also stressed. It was highlighted that digital transformation initiatives should prioritise the needs and satisfaction of citizens. This approach is key to fostering trust and improving the overall effectiveness of digital transformation processes.

The role of the IGF in facilitating outreach and regional initiatives was positively acknowledged. The IGF was recognised as instrumental in the development of regional initiatives, which promote collaboration and partnership in achieving the goals of industry, innovation, and infrastructure.

There was also an important discussion on the coordination of global, national, and regional issues. The speaker emphasised the need for a coordination mechanism that takes into account national and regional differences. This approach ensures that similar initiatives can be encouraged and implemented effectively.

It was observed that the problems and solutions in small island regions, such as the Caribbean and the Pacific, have distinct local aspects. This highlights the importance of considering and addressing these unique aspects when developing strategies and solutions for these regions.

The increasing importance of data flow and digital connectivity was brought to attention, including the prediction that data flow will grow significantly by 2026. However, it was noted that developing countries are at risk of becoming mere data providers in the global market due to a data divide and digital inequality. This issue raises concerns about the potential disadvantage and limited benefits that these countries may face in the digital era.

Overall, the discussions at the annual meetings shed light on the importance of taking strong actions, building capacity, promoting inclusive participation, empowering relevant departments, developing frameworks for digital transformation, prioritising citizen satisfaction, and addressing global and regional challenges. These insights and perspectives provide valuable considerations for policymakers and stakeholders as they work towards achieving the sustainable development goals.

Olga Cavalli

Olga Cavalli, an active participant and supporter of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), expresses her belief that the IGF serves as a fantastic space for defining and creating numerous Internet-related changes. She has been involved with the IGF since its creation in 2005 and highlights its role in bringing about significant developments in the global coordination of the Internet, such as changes in ICANN and the IANA transition. Moreover, she emphasises that the IGF has also been instrumental in giving rise to national and regional IGFs, as well as schools of Internet governance.

Cavalli appreciates the chaotic nature of the IGF and considers it an essential part of its beauty. She argues that the creative chaos of the forum allows for free discussions and an organic exchange of ideas. Cavalli personally experienced the chaotic atmosphere during the forum, recounting a moment when she had difficulty finding the correct panel room. However, she believes that this sense of being lost adds to the overall experience of the IGF.

In terms of the Internet’s global impact, Cavalli emphasises the need to make it a global public good. She supports initiatives like the Global Digital Compact (GDC) that aim to mitigate digital issues. Cavalli led a consultation process with fellows from the School of Internet Governance to contribute to the GDC. Their contribution, focused on seven digital issues, includes connecting everyone to the internet, data protection, and regulating artificial intelligence, and has been published on the GDC’s website.

Cavalli highlights her preference for more open, bottom-up, and multistakeholder processes in digital governance, as opposed to closed multilateral processes. She finds value in the inclusive nature of multistakeholder discussions and believes they offer a path forward in addressing the challenges of the digital economy. However, she notes a trend towards establishing more closed multilateral processes, which she criticises. Cavalli stresses that the way forward should be through multistakeholder engagement, as it allows for a more diverse range of perspectives.

While Cavalli recognises the challenges faced by delegates from developing countries, particularly in handling the overwhelming number of digital governance processes, she sees value in coordinating and concentrating these processes. She believes that a certain level of coordination or concentration is necessary to ensure effective digital governance and prevent fragmentation.

Overall, Cavalli greatly values the unique, free-spirited nature of the IGF. She cherishes the open and inclusive atmosphere that allows for free discussions and networking. Cavalli argues for the preservation of the IGF’s special character, as she believes it is an essential forum for shaping the Internet and addressing global digital challenges. With her extensive experience and involvement in the IGF, Cavalli’s perspectives and support carry significant weight in the ongoing dialogue on Internet governance.

Shernon Osepa

The Internet Governance Forum (IGF) is a platform established for open discussions to identify solutions rather than making decisions. It was created to address the challenges faced in various jurisdictions through meaningful discussions. The IGF allows stakeholders to engage in free and open conversations, enabling them to explore potential solutions.

One of the key purposes of the IGF is to provide an opportunity for small island developing states to voice their ideas and suggestions through the global digital compact process. This process allows these states to take an active role in drafting proposals and receiving feedback from others. It is seen as a way to empower these states and reverse traditional power dynamics.

The original intention of the IGF was to serve as a place for discussions, not decision-making. It aimed to facilitate dialogue and exchange of ideas to understand different perspectives. However, there is a growing need for action-oriented outcomes in countries. Merely discussing issues without taking concrete steps towards solving them may not be sufficient.

Collaboration and partnership are emphasized as important factors in the IGF process. This requires stakeholders to work together, leveraging each other’s expertise and resources to develop effective solutions. The call for collaboration is in line with the focus on SDG 17, which emphasizes the importance of partnerships in achieving sustainable development goals.

Consideration of climate change and natural disasters is highlighted as critical when building infrastructure. These factors can have a significant impact on the effectiveness and longevity of infrastructure projects. It is essential to incorporate climate resilience measures and robust disaster management strategies to ensure the sustainability of infrastructure investments.

Overall, speakers at the IGF urge problem-solving specific to the needs of different regions. By identifying and addressing the unique challenges faced by each jurisdiction, more effective and tailored solutions can be developed. This regional focus allows for the formulation of strategies that are relevant and impactful in driving positive change.

In conclusion, the IGF serves as a platform for open discussions and solution-oriented dialogue. It provides small island developing states with the opportunity to voice their ideas, emphasizes the importance of action-oriented outcomes, collaboration, and partnership, and underscores the consideration of climate change in infrastructure development. The push for region-specific problem-solving highlights the need for tailored approaches to address the diverse challenges faced in different jurisdictions.

Moderator

The discussions centred around the challenges faced by small island developing states (SIDS) when actively participating in the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). SIDS have been part of the IGF process since 2005, but resource constraints, both financial and human, limit their active participation. The cost of attending IGF meetings and the need to get up to speed with the issues were identified as barriers to entry. Despite being a multi-stakeholder process that allows anyone to participate, it was argued that the IGF primarily serves as a platform for networking and discussion, with little focus on generating actionable outcomes. The need for a clear value proposition for the time and effort invested in the IGF was emphasized.

Tracy Hatcher was highlighted as an example of an active participant who serves on multiple boards, including the IGF, ICANN, and ARIN. It was suggested that his active participation benefits the region. The importance of capacity building and building institutional capacities across governments and stakeholders was emphasized. It was acknowledged that no individual can be an expert in all topics, hence the need for capacity building.

The discussions also explored the connection between internet governance issues and critical issues faced by SIDS, such as climate change, economic issues, and cybersecurity. It was argued that linking digital and internet governance issues with these critical challenges could help prioritize them. Cybersecurity and emerging digital threats to the economy were mentioned as notable areas to focus on.

The IGF was acknowledged as a successful platform for bringing people together to learn from each other. However, it was also noted that the overwhelming nature of the IGF approach, with its federated network of networks and numerous meetings, poses challenges. The low governmental participation in the IGF was highlighted as an issue that could potentially be addressed by the Government Digital Service (GDS).

The discussions highlighted the potential of the IGF to provide a space for Small Island Developing States (SIDS) to have their voices heard. The Caribbean IGF, Pacific IGF, and Indian Ocean IGF were mentioned as great platforms for SIDS to voice their issues at national, regional, and global levels. The Trans-Tobago Multistakeholder Advisory Group was cited as an example of such an initiative.

The challenges faced by SIDS, such as resource constraints and the prioritization of critical issues, were emphasized. It was suggested that digital and internet governance issues need to be linked with these critical issues to garner more attention and resources. The importance of understanding the notion of internet governance, including the confusion that arose in the 2000s, was highlighted.

The discussions also touched on the need for stakeholder engagement and the opportunities provided by the IGF to interact with various stakeholders. It was noted that all stakeholders are not always present locally, and the IGF offers a unique opportunity to connect with a diverse range of stakeholders. The importance of translating IGF discussions into local solutions was emphasized.

The potential barriers to digital transformation in small island developing states, such as economic barriers and the lack of trust in digital transactions, were discussed. The absence of national IGFs to guide initiatives on the ground and the need for recommendations and guidelines from the IGF to reach policymakers and decision-makers were highlighted as challenges.

The impact of the Global Digital Compact (GDC) on the digital governance landscape and addressing global inequalities was considered. Contributions towards the GDC from various countries were mentioned, and it was seen as a potential tool to address inequality. The importance of engagement with the School of Internet Governance in contributing to the GDC was noted.

The overwhelming amount of information and processes within digital governance was acknowledged, and it was suggested to focus only on what is relevant to one’s work and interests. The potential of the GDC to have a positive impact on digital governance and global inequalities facing SIDS was emphasized. The need for active participants and meaningful suggestions from small island developing states was highlighted.

The discussions also raised questions about the impact of the GDC on the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) process and potential improvements that the GDC could bring. The need for a clearer focus on implementation and the ‘who’ and ‘how’ aspect of digital transformation were emphasized. The importance of preserving the uniqueness of the IGF was also noted.

Overall, the discussions underscored the challenges and opportunities in internet governance, particularly for small island developing states. The need for capacity building, stakeholder engagement, and the linkage between internet governance and critical issues were emphasized. The potential of the Global Digital Compact and the importance of active participation and representation were highlighted. The discussions also highlighted the need for clearer guidance, resource coordination, and an inclusive and collaborative approach to address global digital challenges.

Moderator:
based intergovernmental international organization dedicated to promoting and supporting the development of the Caribbean Information and Communications Technologies, ICT, and that sector for the socioeconomic development of the region. This open forum is to share specific experiences and advance discussions on issues of global inequality in the new digital global economy within the context of the UN Sustainable Development Goals eight, nine, and 10, and to help developing countries formulate specific proposals and recommendations for the global digital compact as they prepare for the future of the world summit. We must ensure that the GDC takes into account the shortcomings of the UN IGF process, specifically as it relates to DCs and SIDS and identifies opportunities and mechanisms to address those shortcomings. All of these issues are addressed in this open forum, are issues that the Caribbean is currently grappling with and which present major social and economic development challenges for the region. Interaction between onsite and online speakers and attendees will be facilitated via an online moderator and that person will flag questions, comments, and other actions of online participants to the onsite moderator. So let’s get started. Our guests this morning are, let me start with myself. My name is Jo Ford. I am the onsite moderator and Misha Marius is the online moderator. Our guests this morning are, next to me, Mr. Rodney Taylor, Secretary General of the Caribbean Telecommunications Union. Sylvia Cadena, sorry, Sylvia’s not with us. Olga Cavalli, co-founder of the director of the South School on Internet Governance. Mr. Quinton Shu-Lambert, Office of the Secretary General’s Envoy on Technology. And Tracy Hackshaw, who is the president of the Trinidad and Tobago Multistakeholder Advisory Group. Online, we have Mr. Serena? And Ms. Serena Telano, Director of Knowledge, the Diplo Foundation. Online, we’ve got Mr. Otis Osborne. He’s the acting head HOD of Department of Information Technology at the University of the Commonwealth Caribbean and Mr. Shernan Oseipa, Internet Governance and Cybersecurity Policy Advisor. So once again, good morning everyone. We want this to be a robust discussion and interactive, so please feel free to join in. But I’m gonna start with the opening remarks. What are the main internet governance challenges you believe have been facing SIDS and how has the IGF served as a platform to mitigate those challenges? And I’m going to start with you, Mr. Taylor.

Rodney Taylor:
Thank you. Good morning, and thanks for joining us for this discussion this morning. With respect to the challenges facing SIDS, I think the part of the challenge, I would say, is the ability to actively participate in the processes that have been ongoing now since 2005. The fact is that we’re a small island developing state, so there are resource constraints or financial resources, human resources, and therefore, even though the IGF is a multi-stakeholder process, which means that anyone can participate, I mean, as long as you’re online, as a matter of fact, even if you’re not online, you can participate, you can come and make your voice heard. But there’s still barriers to entry, as it were. There’s a cost to coming here to Kyoto. Even if you access remotely, you need to still be brought up to speed with the issues. And you’ll see many of the panelists here are actively involved. I mean, I use Tracy Hatcher, who’s on the panel here, as a poster child for IGF participation because he’s been active for a long time, I mean, really active, sitting on boards, not just within IGF, but in other processes like ICANN and so on, and ARIN. So if we can get 10 more, like Mr. Hatcher, I think the region would be well-represented. But reality is that most people, including Tracy and myself, have a day job. So while we’re happy to come here and talk and discuss, reality is that we do have other duties and responsibilities. The IGF is well-recognized as a place where people come and talk and discuss and we network and so on. And there’s value in that, but it doesn’t necessarily translate into an actionable outcome. And therefore, you have to start asking the value proposition of the investment that is being made to participate. So I’ll stop there for now, but those are some of the challenges. Thank you.

Moderator:
Thank you very much, Mr. Taylor. And I’ll move over to Serena Talalou. Serena?

Sorina Teleanu:
Thank you. Just building on what Rodney was saying, what we’re seeing in Geneva, and yeah, maybe I should start with the context. I work in Geneva a lot with missions of countries there. And you know, Geneva is one of the hub of digital diplomacy, internet governance, internet policy. A lot is happening there with ITU and a bunch of other organizations discussing internet and related issues. And what we’re hearing a lot from missions of small developing countries, and paradoxically also from larger countries, is that there’s a lot going on, and it’s impossible to follow everything. So there is this big challenge of keeping an eye on everything happening, and then meaningfully contributing, as you were saying. And another challenge they’re facing is the lack of capacity. There is so much going on, on so many topics, one person cannot be an expert into everything. So the question is, how do you build institutional capacities, in this case across governments, but also across other stakeholder groups? To what extent the IGF has managed to mitigate some of these challenges? I think there have been efforts, and even the whole idea of having an IGF where people get together to try to learn a bit more from each other is a good thing. But then again, there’s so much going on, and you have to make a choice. And again, speaking about governments, I think we’re seeing this is a challenge for the IGF. Not many governments actually show up. Let’s see if the GDC can help address some of these challenges. Thank you.

Moderator:
Thank you very much, Serena. Tracy, action.

Tracy Hackshaw:
Thank you very much. So in this session, I’m representing the Trans-Tobago Multistakeholder Advisory Group, which puts on the Trans-Tobago IGF. But I also wear the hat as co-coordinator of the Dynamic Coalition on Small and Developing States. of my co-coordinator sitting in the room where I’m watching her directly in front of me, Maureen Hilliard from the Cook Islands. So from a positive standpoint, I do think that the IGF can provide a space for SIDS to have their voices heard, especially in terms of the national and regional IGFs. The Caribbean IGF is one great example of that. Pacific IGF, I believe there’s gonna be the Indian Ocean IGF soon, and then at the national level in terms of the various islands who have their own IGFs that can feed into the national, regional, and global IGF. But of course, there are challenges. So even though we do have the dynamic coalition, we do have these IGFs, resources, as was said before, is a challenge. And the other thing that I think we need to worry about is whether or not the priorities that we place on internet issues, internet policy, even digital issues, in the SIDS are given sufficient priority. As we all know, in SIDS, there are significant other challenges that we face, climate change being one of them, obviously infrastructural issues generally, economic issues, and so on. Of course, other countries face that. So where we talk about something as ideas, did I say esoteric as internet governance, when you approach the leadership in the countries, that is somewhat shifted down the priority level. So we need to find a way to link digital and internet governance issues with the critical issues that face our country. And to a large extent, that links to things like cyber security, emerging threats to the economy that digital brings. And if we find a way to link those two, I think we can maybe. overcome the challenges using something along those lines. But we’ll leave that discussion for later on. Thanks.

Moderator:
Thank you very much, Tracy. I will now ask Mr. Quinton Shue-Lambert to give his opening remarks.

Quintin Chou-Lambert:
Thank you very much. Yeah, it seems that some of the benefits of the IGF are also, you know, the cause of some of the issues as well. There seems to be a tradeoff between this kind of federated network of networks approach which allows the regional and local kind of consultations with the kind of overwhelm of how many different meetings people have to go to to keep up to speed. And in a case where the – we also hear in New York that the delegations, even in New York, are overwhelmed with many other issues, including climate, the debt issues. And so often the urgency of these Internet governance issues can be kind of pushed down. So I do think one of the benefits of the IGF is to just bring people together and, I mean, this being my first IGF, I feel very humbled having shared the room with people who have been here from the start, since 2003 and almost since the birth of IGF and the WSIS Action Line process. And coming in and listening to all the sessions and exchanging has allowed, you know, me to understand more some of the issues that – and some of the perspectives. And that’s – there’s a lot of value in that sharing of information. And so in a world where some kind of political conditions are becoming more challenging, this kind of networking and exchange will become increasingly valuable and something that we’ll come back to when we come to the question around the future of the IGF. But these comments are a little bit generic. But some of the Internet governance challenges and how the IGF deals with that are common with many other countries. other parts of the world, parts of the developing world, LLDCs, LDCs, and one of the questions is how this group will come together, if it comes together, to give voice to some of its concerns in a global process.

Moderator:
And I’m going to ask Ms. Olga Cavalli to also give her remarks. Olga.

Olga Cavalli:
Thank you. Thank you so much, and thank you for inviting me to this very interesting panel. This is my 18th IGF. I was there on, yes, I’ve been young for so many years. I was there when the IGF was created in Tunis in 2005, and when it was decided it was going to be in Athens, in Greece. I think that IGF has been a fantastic space for defining and creating many of the things that are in place now. Many of the changes that have been happening in the global coordination of the Internet were born in discussions here, where there is no one specific outcome. I think that all the changes that were done in the ICANN organization, the IANA transition, the affirmation of commitments, many, many changes that are really binding were born in spaces of dialogue like the IGF. All the national and regional IGFs were born spontaneous from discussions in this space. The schools of Internet governance were born as a spinoff from the IGF. Now we started, first it was the European, the second was ours in Latin America for 15 years, and now there are more than 20 all over the world. Those fantastic activities and dialogue spaces, perhaps more focused in regions, sub-regions, cities or specific issues, were born in the IGF. I think the IGF is a fantastic space. It is, sometimes people get lost. I was lost in trying to find this room. This is why I just came at the hour. But that’s part of the beauty, this creative chaos that the IGF bring to all of us. So I’m always positive. I think it’s a great meeting. I only attended twice virtually because I couldn’t travel and then the pandemic, but now I’m happy to be here again. So these are my comments for the moment.

Moderator:
Thank you very much. We now go to our online moderator, Ms. Michelle Marius. Michelle, you’re going to introduce our two online participants. Okay, hi, good evening, everyone. It is nighttime in Jamaica where I am. Is it possible, Shonan, for us to hear from you, Shonan Osepa, and then we will have Otis Osborne.

Shernon Osepa:
Yes, it is possible. Good morning, good evening to all. It’s a pleasure and honor to be here and to give a contribution to the development of the internet. I think when we talk about internet governance, it’s important for us to understand why we came up with all these discussions regarding internet governance. So back then, like around year 2000, there was a lot of confusion going on around the globe, especially governments, they didn’t know what this thing called the internet was. So we have seen all the discussions coming up with the WSIS that finally did lead to the IJF that we have in nowadays. And I think when we talk about internet governance, we can always use the, I like to use the baskets that Diplo Foundation has been focusing on, looking at, for example, the infrastructure, security, legal, economic, sociocultural development. and human rights issues. And I think especially since small island development states, we can use these baskets as a kind of a checklist to see where we are with developments in our own different, let’s say, jurisdictions. We should also recognize that it was never the intention of the IGF to come with to take decisions. So it’s not a decision making body. But it’s more like a place where people can talk freely and discuss in order to see how they can come up with solutions. But I think the very important thing is that once we have discussed issues, challenges, and opportunities at the IGF, we should return home and then have some meaningful discussions with, let’s say, all stakeholders that normally do attend IGFs. Because sometimes locally in our own jurisdictions, you would not find those persons. But at the IGF, you will find all these stakeholders. So I think, and once we return home, looking at the different countries, islands, whatever, we should say, okay, these are the challenges that we are facing in this particular jurisdiction. How can we solve these challenges that we are facing? And I think if we can focus on that, then it will add value. So although the IGF doesn’t focus on, let’s say, for us to take key decisions, but once we return home, we should be able to discuss with all the stakeholders in order for us to address local challenges that we are facing.

Moderator:
Thank you. Mr. Osborne, please. Hello, Mr. Osborne.

Otis Osbourne:
Sorry, I was so muted. Okay. Well, for me, I think that for small island developing states, there’s an economic barrier to digital transformation and access, especially, well, for everyone, the government, businesses, and citizens alike. Not to mention the pervasive lack of trust in digital transactions by majority of the medium to small, small to medium business service providers and consumers of these services. The IGF of course, plays a vital role in making recommendations and guiding discussions on internet governance. However, these discussions may have missed Jamaica’s policy and decision makers, due especially to the non-existence of national IGFs to guide initiatives on the ground. Thank you.

Moderator:
Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Osborne. We come back to our on-site panelists. And the first question is, how do you see the acceptance of the global digital compact, the GDC, changing the digital governance landscape and addressing global inequalities facing SIDS in the new digital global economy? I’m going to start at the other end of the table with you, Olga.

Olga Cavalli:
Thank you very much. We think this is a very interesting process. We thought that it was a good opportunity for engaging the fellows of the School of Internet Governance in making a contribution. So we started an online process of consulting with them. So we received contributions from 65 fellows from 22 countries of the five continents. I will share in the chat the document that we produced and we contribute, focused on the seven digital issues that the Common Agenda suggested. There were comments made about, one, connect everyone to the Internet including all schools, avoid Internet fragmentation, protect data, which is number three. Number four, apply human rights online. Five, introduce accountability criteria for discrimination and misleading content, promote the regulation of artificial intelligence and digital commons as a global public good. So this wasn’t a first experiment. We didn’t do such an activity before and the comments and outcomes finalized a very, very interesting document. We translated it into three languages, Spanish, English and Portuguese and we sent it to the Global Digital Compact. It’s published now in their website and for the fellows this was really a very remarkable activity. I will share with you the link to the document where you have their names, the countries of origin and the outcome document. Sometimes, as we were saying a moment before, it’s overwhelming how to follow all the processes. Many of my students at the university also ask me that and what I tell them is that, okay, try to focus on things that are important for your work and for your personal interest. We cannot be experts in everything but we cannot be interested in some of the things and follow them. So we are following all the activities of the Global Digital Compact and the Summit of the Future. Now, with the fellows of this year, We are preparing a similar document to what we did for the Global Digital Compact for contributing to the Summit of the Future and WSIS Plus 20. Now we have the experience from the first document, so we want to build upon from there. I will stop here. I will share the document in the chat.

Moderator:
Thank you very much, Olga. I am going to go next to you, Quinten.

Quintin Chou-Lambert:
Thank you. So, the Global Digital Compact is quite a nice complement to the IGF. And we have heard already that the IGF is maybe decision-shaping, but it is not decision-making. The GDC is a decision opportunity at the leader’s level. So, heads of government will come together next September and make a decision around how the Global Digital Compact should be, what should be inside of it. The opportunity here for SIDS is to really, and for everyone, but especially countries who have not necessarily harvested as many of the benefits of the global digital ecosystem over the last 20 years, to maybe have an updated set of concerns incorporated. So, you know, when the WSIS action lines were first written, they were updated in 2015 for the SDGs, but there was not such a big concern around data and the value of data and how data was being monetized back in 2000s. Now data is, some people, you know, talk about it as a very valuable resource. And how is that monetized? How is those revenues taken into local jurisdictions? And, of course, artificial intelligence is a new technology. Well, not that new, but its technical breakthroughs have happened recently, which were not available before. So, it’s a chance to up… date the focus, and it’s also a chance to upgrade the ambition around trying to spread the benefits of these technologies globally in a way that’s safe, but also in a way that benefits all countries and all humans, let’s say. So one way of thinking about it is when the sustainable development goals were put on the table, they were a chance to reconcile the two competing goals of development, economic growth, and sustainability, because we have a finite planet. In a similar way, the Global Digital Compact could be a way of trying to harness these technologies and spread the benefits around the world, but to do it in a way that is safe and also benefits everyone, inclusive. So we’ll see what happens with the GDC. It will be in the hands of the member states, not the U.N., so everything I say is from a perspective or kind of speculative, if you like. But it is a leader-level decision, and it’s a rare opportunity to take some of the questions and issues that have been surfaced during the IGF discussions, some of those questions which cannot just be handled purely by the technical community that require high-level political decision-making, and inject them into this policy window.

Moderator:
Thank you very much, Tracy. Same question to you.

Tracy Hackshaw:
All right. So I think it’s a very interesting question. The GDC does not exist yet, so it’s a question that we, you know, I don’t know. So what I decided to do is I went into my chat GPT and bot. The answer is shorter, so I’ll give what bot told me. So bot told me that one of the key goals of the GDC is to promote a more inclusive and equitable digital world. This is particularly important for SIDS. because it could help address global inequalities by providing SIDS with greater access to digital technologies and resources and by helping them to develop their own digital economies. Sounds good. Then there are some specific ways, increased access to digital technologies and resources, support for development of digital economies, strengthen digital capacity, improve digital governance and explains what those mean. And then it says, overall, the GDC has the potential to have a significant positive impact on digital governance and global inequalities facing SIDS by providing a global framework of digital cooperation. GDDC could help to create a more inclusive and equitable digital world for all. So that sounds like a lot of words that were just put nicely together because it’s a large language model, right? So it just puts all the words together. Sounds really good. What does it mean, though, in reality? What does it mean for the SIDS populations? So I think there is, I agree with what has been said, there is an opportunity. As I said, it does not exist yet, and I’m glad you said it’s up to member states to actually implement it. And again, coming back to the priorities issue, what it can do, I do think it can lift the priority of digital issues higher up on the agenda because it’s something a little more formal, a little more tangible than what the IGF has been set up as sort of a discussion space. So this is, I’m not saying it’s a treaty, it’s not any kind of mandatory thing to happen, but at the very least, member states will agree to something and you have your health account. So if it is that that is what it’s going to be, then I would imagine, like with other types of UN processes, the SDGs, the discrimination against women and so on, we can find, perhaps, the way to report on this, to hold member states to account, especially in SIDS, and to use it to get governments to actually program these activities, or what can improve the SIDS economy’s activities, into their various budgets, and allow the communities in their own countries and the stakeholders in their countries to deliver upon what the Digital Compact promises. Because it’s a promise. It’s, as you said, speculative. But once I think it’s a promise, it’s a promise to keep. So I do hope, and I’m being very optimistic here, that once that is happening, we can start to see a priority lift. And I also would like to say that maybe the fact that it’s being 2024, someone to the future, there’s a brand, there’s some push towards it. As we talked about in our DC SIDS session, it’s sort of an event we can mobilize around. There could be some signal activities around this that will raise the profile of these issues and make it along the same lines as our challenges that we face in terms of infrastructure and so on.

Moderator:
Thanks. Thanks very much, Tracy. And Serena?

Sorina Teleanu:
Thank you. Yeah, building on what Tracy and Bard were saying. Mostly Bard, all right. Indeed, there is a lot of promise and expectation in the global digital compact. Looking at the question, I’m not completely sure there is indeed a goal to actually have a GDC change the digital governance landscape. So I would skip that part of the question. Whether it will address inequality, I think that’s part of the promise and the potential. What I personally would like to see going towards this GDC is building a roadmap but taking into account everything that has happened so far. So trying a bit not to reinvent the wheel and re-say all those things that Bard was saying. But yet, rather try to take things forward. We have WSIS outcomes. We have the annual UNGA resolution on ICT for development. We have the SDGs, which to some extent should be relying on using technology for development. If we can in some way build on all this and have a global digital compact. that is a bit forward-looking, I think that would indeed help address some of these inequalities. Thank you.

Moderator:
Thank you very much. Serena, Rodney?

Rodney Taylor:
Sure, I’ll be very quick. I think this question also goes to the heart of. You’re not hearing me? Okay, hi, good. This question goes to the heart of multilateralism versus multistakeholderism. So in the UN, and I saw this when we actually crafted some statements for our permanent representatives in New York who, from the Caribbean, some of them were able to make interventions during the GDC deep dives and various thematic areas. And it’s clear that the UN gives priority to its member states. I mean, so when I speak on the floor of the UN, I speak on behalf of my country. I have influence. Within this process here, you’re an attendee, like everybody else, and you’re free to make your contributions. Yes, there may be some influence if you’re a diplomat, but really, the forum is meant to be multistakeholder in that everybody has an equal voice. The UN is quite a different animal. So even though that process was, well, and it’s not a criticism of the process, but even though it was sought to be multistakeholder, it was clear that priority would be given or was given in terms of UN accepting interventions by the member states. So now that’s not necessarily a bad thing for small states because for small states, and if you look at the ITU process, for example, Barbados has the same voice, the same vote as the United States, as Canada, and so on. So we can influence, right? There’s a lot of lobbying within those processes for that very reason, all right? Whereas in the multistakeholder process, it’s all equal footing, but it’s not all equal resources and participation. as I mentioned before, so the voices that show up, the voices that have the resources to show up are the ones that have the potential to have a stronger influence. So there’s those dynamics, but I feel positive overall about the GDC and hopefully it leads to some positive outcomes for us. Thank you.

Moderator:
Thank you very much, Rodney. And Michelle, I’m gonna hand over to you for your online panelists. Yes, thank you. Otis, can you go first and then Shannon, please?

Otis Osbourne:
Okay, so I agree with my fellow panelists and I like to add without regurgitating what was said before, is that there’s no doubt that the world is transitioning into a new digital global economy. Well, however, for small island developing states, especially, this transition is progressing at a very slow pace. And unless governments, and I’m talking Caribbean governments, recognize the universal access or universal access to free internet, and I emphasize free internet as a human rights, because they are digitizing for e-governance. However, if you do not have data on your phones, then you’re not able to access that service. Also, this free internet as a human right must be paired with online security, privacy, and safety. If that is not done, the new digital global economy will continue. perpetuate the old-age manifestation of widespread social exclusion. Thank you.

Moderator:
Thank you. Shernan, please.

Shernon Osepa:
Yes, to me, basically the beauty of the global digital compact process is the opportunity that especially small island development states will get through with this process. And whenever something doesn’t exist, you have the opportunity to create it. So I think that should be the point of departure that we are going to use right now. A lot of times, especially since we are looking, you know, we think that we are victims, but now we have the opportunity to come at the table and to come with meaningful suggestions. And as Mr. Taylor did mention, of course, you may have to do maybe some lobbying with others, but at least if you have something on paper, then people can discuss about it. So I think this is the opportunity for us to put something on paper and let others give comments regarding what we have been drafting. Most of the times, they draft things, and we just give comments. So I think we should reverse this right now. We should draft in which direction we think we should go, this whole global digital compact process, and let others give comments on what we think the direction that we should go. So I think if we do that, at least we may have a big chance that at least our voices are being heard and that we can make meaningful impacts and changes in our nations.

Moderator:
Is the GDC positioned to address the shortcomings of the IGF process? And if so, what are the opportunities and mechanisms to address these shortcomings? I’m gonna start back with you, Michelle, online. Let our online panelists get in the first word in this one. Okay, great. So I’m gonna start with you, Michelle. So what are the shortcomings of the IGF process? And if so, let our online panelists get in the first word in this one. Okay, great. Shannon, would you go first, please, and then Otis.

Shernon Osepa:
Yes, okay. I think when we talk about shortcomings of the IGF process, again, it’s very important for us to identify what happened back then with the IGF. How we have been approaching or looking at the IGF nowadays, it was, that was not the original intention of the IGF. The IGF was more like a talking place where people can discuss ideas with not, let’s say, to take significant decisions right in those rooms, but to have the discussions ongoing. So I’m not sure if we should say, if we look at that, if we can say that there were some shortcomings, because it was not meant to be like that, you know? So, I mean, if you look at the original objectives, they were met in one way or the other. But I believe, as I did mention before, it’s nice to have discussions regarding opportunities and challenges that we’re facing. But at the end of the day, we would like to see actions being taken place in our countries. And that’s basically what we can see with, let’s see, with this next approach. And I think, as I did mention before, that would be a big, a great opportunity for us to come with meaningful suggestions in order for us to achieve things and not only to keep discussions in a closed room that cannot help us with anything. So that would be the way how I would like to look at it.

Moderator:
Thank you. Thanks, Shannon. Otis, please.

Otis Osbourne:
Yes. Yes, it is my view that the potential of the GDC, followed with ways out of the IGF, due to the GDC being a UN directive or policy per se. No, I agree with Shannon that because when I look, when I think about it, for example, the idea of discussions on best practices in securing the Internet seem to have been, for the most part, just discussions. Right? As the best practices are seriously being implemented. Most ISPs and network operators have not adopted, for example, the MANRS actions to secure data being routed through the Internet. We have two ISPs, Digicel and Flow. And when I check if they are members of MANRS, Digicel was the only one. And they have not adopted all the actions. Right? So there are still some gaps. When I look at, again, NDAs, Ministries, Departments, and Agencies, and SMEs. and financial and educational institutions. Most of them have not implemented cost-free DNSSEC and IPv6 standards to secure digital transactions and other internet-based activities. I use internet.nl to check if our cybersecurity incident response team, if their URL is secure, and they have not implemented DNSSEC. And they are the implementing agency and advisory for the government and other institutions and organizations within Jamaica, right? So I think that in conclusion, the GDC could eliminate the shortcomings. And I’m talking about the lack of action of the IGFs by maybe elevating or expanding the IGF to an implementation monitoring and maybe even an enforcement coalition of country-based IGFs. Thank you.

Moderator:
Thank you so much, Otis. Yeah, some, I guess, very powerful thoughts about the situation in Jamaica. Thank you very much, Misha. I’m going to come now to my on-site panel and I’m going to start with you, Rodney. Your thoughts on, is the GDC positioned to address the shortcomings of the IGF process? And if so, what are the opportunities and mechanisms to address those shortcomings?

Rodney Taylor:
Thank you very much, Jewel. Well, if we were to believe Otis, It is going to be an amazing opportunity to fix all the problems we have. Sorry, Otis, sorry to take that job at you. But those are really high expectations. And I don’t see the GDC addressing those things because they’re not easy things to address to start with. There’s no UN compact that will force those operators to implement these measures. We can encourage, we provide, like you said, best practice. But at the level of the United Nations, we don’t see that happening. I mean, there are so many other things if you look at it globally, if you look at the geopolitics globally, even in things of climate change where there’s clear evidence that action needs to be taken. And still, the UN struggles to get the world to respond. Things like human trafficking and so on. So the internet is just another one of those very complicated things that the world is just trying to make sure that there’s a mechanism for collaborating. And that’s what the GDC is, in my view, another mechanism. There are advantages, like I said, for addressing the shortcomings, as in, well, it has the potential to give small states a stronger voice. I think it’s going to be very difficult. I wish the tech envoy success. He’s been tasked with that responsibility, and we’ve been actively participating and supporting. But it’s no means easy. I mean, as Tracy pointed out, it is not yet. And let’s hope that there are some positive outcomes. But we welcome it, and we think there is an opportunity to strengthen the IGF process, to work along with, and achieve better outcomes for the world, generally. Thank you.

Moderator:
Thank you very much, Serena.

Sorina Teleanu:
Thank you. I think I’ll take a step back a bit and try to, I don’t know, I think we sometimes need a bit more clarity in discussions. For instance, in this specific case, I don’t think it’s necessarily fair to put the GDC and the IGF, you know, in a comparison situation. Because the IGF is a process, and the GDC is supposed to be, at the end of 2024, a document, right? So if we were to be a little more fair, it would be comparing the GDC, which as Tracy was saying, we don’t really have, with the Tunis agenda, which was the starting point for the IGF. So leaving that aside, yes, we do need a bit more clarity into that. Shortcomings of the IGF, sure, no process is perfect, and definitely IGF has not been a perfect process. But we have seen over the 18 years that it has improved, and it has shown willingness to change, to adapt. to the changing technological landscape and to respond to some of these challenges. We had a few sessions back then, now we have, look at so many happening right now in parallel. We have all the interstitial activities, best practice forum, policy networks and a lot around that, the parliamentary track and all these attempts to try to do something. Again, it’s not a perfect process, there can be improvements. As Rodney was saying, ideally the GDC would build a bit on that and see how to strengthen the IGF. We have also had all these discussions in the past about IGF plus and there was a lot of endorsement of that whole concept. We haven’t seen much follow-up on that. Let’s see if the GDC could build on it. And I think all of us have heard throughout this week at the IGF how many have said, well, let’s see how the IGF itself can serve as some sort of a follow-up mechanism for the GDC itself. I won’t go into the third question because I was close to that, but yes, let’s look a bit at things this way, how we can bring things together instead of, yeah, just trying to see how new things might be solving problems of things that have existed. Thank you, Sabine.

Moderator:
Tracy?

Tracy Hackshaw:
All right. This is me, not bot, I hope. So just building on what I said before, I do think the opportunity is there to raise the profile and something I had spoken about in a session yesterday about outreach. So we expect, we’re sitting in Kyoto or wherever we are, and we expect things to just happen. People to come, somehow the U.N. system, things just come to us, come to us and talk. But maybe it should be the other way around so maybe the GDC can go the other direction and allow it to reach into the communities, getting back to the SIDS-specific issues, reach into SIDS and say, look, this is something. we are bringing to the table to help improve your existence and your circumstances and tell us what you need. And perhaps there’s an opportunity there for better dialogue. If it’s a compact, the word compact means something in the English language. It’s some sort of promise to deliver, promise to work together. It’s also a handshake almost. So if that’s what it is, and we don’t know what it is yet, if that’s what it is, then I think there’s a real opportunity there to have the UN system reach into and reach out to small and developing states, into the stakeholders, and make things happen. We don’t see a lot of that, I think, with other digital activities. So that’s good that it could happen that way. So besides funding interventions and so on, there may be opportunities for real skills and knowledge transfer, real capacity development in those territories, and also to work with governments to ensure that, as I said, the priorities of these issues are brought higher up on the agenda. So Otis’s concerns about cybersecurity, which I think are the broader issues in terms of resilience, can be brought further up on the agenda because we can’t just sit here and talk about it’s not happening and not make it happen, right? So it’s not happening, right? But what do we do just to make it happen? So maybe this is an opportunity to have that happen. So I see a lot of promise in that regard, and I hope that Tech Convoy is here, that he’s listening and hearing what we’re saying because I think that’s what we’re trying to say. Don’t sit in the New York and Geneva or wherever, Riyadh, Kyoto, wherever we are, and talk about it. Let’s go there. Let’s make it happen. Rub the sleeves. Get it done. And just remember, I always like to tell people, yes, it’s the internet. Yes, we are connected, but not everyone is connected. So don’t assume that we can just do a Zoom call and make it happen either. We may have to get there and do it. Thanks.

Moderator:
Thank you very much, Tracy. As we say in our region, enough of the long talk. Quentin?

Quintin Chou-Lambert:
Thank you. Yeah, I love that, Tracy. And in fact, with certain topics, that is exactly the approach that the tech envoy is proposing, which we’re calling a multi-stakeholder networked approach. So for example, with the high level advisory body on artificial intelligence, which will be formed in the next couple of weeks, the recruitment process was extremely open. And we received more than 1,800 nominations. It was an open call, public call on the website. And in fact, some of the nominations from SIDS countries were self-nominations. And the multi-stakeholder networked approach to consultations, what we’re planning to do is have those members of the body go out into different networks that they already are members of and try and reach in, like you say, and try and understand the needs, understand the concerns, understand the expertise, and bring them back into the political process. Because that’s the thing that can be done kind of, let’s say, outside of New York, outside of the intergovernmental chambers, but get that information expertise in there and shape the decision. Maybe coming to the main question around the shortcomings of the IGF, I mean, what I’ve heard in this panel and generally is there seem to be two huge challenges. One is around the absence of decision making, and the other is around the overwhelm and the vast capacity gap in keeping track of everything going on. And whether a GDC can address these two issues really depends. So, obviously, you know, from the Secretary-General’s perspective, he would like to have a very ambitious GDC, one that unifies the UN system in providing support and gets, you know, the UN agencies, which are all around the world, working on some of the country-level issues, and also one which builds bridges between countries on issues like cross-border commerce, you know, the moratorium on tariffs on e-commerce, the trade revenue and taxation that may not be happening and which, if it were happening, would help build public sector capacity more endogenously. These are not specific proposals of the Secretary-General, but these are concerns which need to be voiced by those countries who have them, concerns around, you know, social, economic and cultural rights, for example, authorship and intellectual property over media content that may have been produced and exported and now that can be done using AI. These kinds of concerns need to be lifted up and presented in a unified voice. And when I say it depends, you know, the ambition level to get to those beyond just principles in the GDC and beyond just objectives to actions and commitments where there is some kind of promise to actually deliver something, there needs to be a unified voice and among, you know, the countries in whose interests it is. And so one of the things we’ve been observing is that because delegations are so overstretched in New York, they are… and because they’re so overwhelmed with… or let’s say their inboxes are overflowing with more urgent issues around debt relief, around some of the basic economic issues, the SDGs, you know, not on track yet with the SDGs, sometimes they’re overlooking the significant… of digital. And because digital is one of the growing sectors in the digital economy. I mean, the digital economy is one of the growing sectors and will continue to be. This is a real opportunity for the future. So the challenge is how can countries kind of look up from the immediate crisis they’re in and think about how the digital architecture is going to look a few years down the line and how their role is going to be within that. So I’ll come back to the issue of stretch capacity maybe in the final question. But one of the questions around review and follow-up on any commitments that are reached in the GDC is to what extent governments and others can participate in that. So I’ll come back to that point.

Moderator:
Thank you very much for that, Quentin. And now you, Olga.

Olga Cavalli:
Thank you very much. Most of my thoughts are already addressed by my colleagues in the table. But I would like to build upon what Serena said that I don’t find it totally fair to compare the IGF with the GDC. I find some commonalities in between the two processes. I think one of the beauties of the IGF is the equal footing. That it may be this chaos that you can find, Vint Cerf walking in a corridor and take a picture with him, or you can find colleagues from other countries that you didn’t have the opportunity to meet before. So that beauty, I think, it’s remarkable from IGF. Other meetings are more structured, which is true. And perhaps this variety of activities, and we run from one meeting to the other one, trying to find a room, makes us find what we didn’t think we were going to find. So that is something which I find interesting. What I like from GDC is that it seems to be a bottom-up process. What I have seen lately is kind of a tendency of establishing more closed multilateral processes, and I think that the way forward is multi-stakeholder. It’s the only way to solve all the problems related with digital economy, the impact of digitalization in developing countries or in the whole countries or cross-data flow and all the problems or things that we have to think about is in a multi-stakeholder way. So all the processes that are multi-stakeholder, I think they are the way and not multilateral. Whether the delegations could be prepared for that, I’ve been advisor to the minister for the first 20 years, so I know how the dynamics in the different delegations work. And sometimes there is a gap in between what happens in the ground of the country and what goes to United Nations in, for example, a multilateral meeting. So also, the fact that we can contribute in a bottom-up process as the GDC is the opportunity that it brings is to reflect on things and think about in deep in all the seven different issues that it establishes. So I think there is value there. No problem will be solved, but we will think about how to solve them.

Moderator:
Thank you very much for that contribution. Specifically from a SIDS perspective, what are the real benefits these vulnerable countries can derive from the GDC and is the GDC a duplication of current processes and should the IGF process and GDP, GDC be kept separate or should they be an evaluation, an evolution of one to the other? I know that’s a lot, but I’m going to start with you, Rodney.

Rodney Taylor:
Thanks. Right, so we’ve heard that it’s not fair to compare the two. But okay, so let me try to dissect. So the benefits. The reality is that there’s still a lot of global inequality in the digital space. We talk about this, not sure what the latest figure is, but 2 point something billion people not connected. I’m sure the majority of those are in developing countries. Some certainly are in small island developing countries. So there is an opportunity to focus on this issue a bit more in global digital compact and help in the connectivity and infrastructural issues and sits by drawing greater attention to this issue globally and giving it priority within a body such as the United Nations. And that’s good for us, like I said, because we tend to play stronger. That is my assessment within the multilateral processes and within spaces like the UN and so on as sovereign states. The GDC though, it’s not a duplication of the process because it is meant to be a compact, like Tracy said, a global handshake. This is how we’re going to move together globally on some of these key issues like cybersecurity, artificial intelligence and so on. Now, it might lead to a process and I think there’s been some discussion about the digital global form or something of this sort. So sort of an expansion of the role of IGF or maybe even a parallel process altogether if you can imagine showing up for another one of these, perhaps the following week in Australia or someplace, it’d be very difficult for us to follow. So let’s hope that it doesn’t evolve that way and that there is, and clearly there’s synergies. Even though we talk about internet governance, clearly the issues go beyond the internet itself. There are issues that are being discussed of human rights and artificial intelligence. So there’s not just the internet that we’re talking about. And therefore we don’t need to create a whole new process for people to follow and more meetings just to add the word digital to a process, frankly. speaking. So it is not quite a process yet. It is leading towards the summit of the future. We are actively participating, and we think there is an opportunity for us to lend our voices to ensure that there isn’t – we talk about Internet fragmentation, but Internet governance fragmentation, so that, again, we go off on two separate tracks to deal with this. Thank you.

Moderator:
Too many mics around. Sorry for that.

Sorina Teleanu:
No, I agree with Rodney. We shouldn’t probably look at the GDC as a duplication because, well, the goal is to come up with a compact. I was reading the other day the compact for migration. That could be an interesting example for the GDC to look at. You know, it has clear commitments, clear actions to implement those commitments and then a follow-up process. So no duplication there. There are models to follow. The discussion, as Rodney was also saying, I think we’ve been seeing again over the past few days at the IGF about whether we can use the IGF as some sort of follow-up mechanism for the GDC itself. And this whole idea of new forum, I think it was in the UN Secretary General Policy Brief, the digital cooperation forum. It has been discussed quite a lot over the past few days, so I won’t go into that. As Quentin was saying earlier, whatever decision is made, I think a few things should be kept in mind. Are people, countries, governments, other stakeholders having the resources available to follow multiple processes that more or less would be tackling similar or complementary issues? Are there resources to fund more than one process looking into these issues? And then at the end of the day, what would happen with the outcomes of all these processes? Do we bring them together at some point somewhere? Just a few things to consider as a discussion on the Global Digital Compact Advance. So ideally, we do find ways for things to work together rather than create competition for resources. Thank you.

Moderator:
Tracy?

Tracy Hackshaw:
Thank you. So I did ask bot and Chattopadhyay this one because I don’t know as well. And they agreed. They agreed. They said that the way they used it was complementary. So that’s interesting that they’ve agreed on that together. So that it seems as if the AI models seem to agree that this is going to work well. So that’s useful. In my own opinion, though, again, I’m trying to, there’s something in the Caribbean called plain talk, bad manners. So at the IGF, in unfair comparison, the voice of SIDS is not very loud and the volume is also not very loud. So in terms of numbers and in terms of representation, even when there are attempts to actually, you know, to request representation, it seems to be that we get lost in the crowd. So to a large extent in the Latin American Caribbean space, Caribbean is silent in the LAC space. Pacific is silent in the AP space, Asia-Pacific space. And Indian Oceans are silent in the African space. Not for lack of trying. Larger countries dominate and that’s the way it works. So in the IGF space where that seems to be happening, in the SIDS discussion, I think the GDC might actually improve that. This kind of getting back to Rodney’s idea of the one country, one vote process. So again, being very, very plain talk, bad manners here, I do think that there’s an opportunity in the GDC process to get SIDS points across more specifically because we have a more equitable voice there. I can’t seem to fix it in the IGF. I’ve been trying for years. Can’t seem to fix it. So let’s fix it with the GDC. Simple as that. I think that’s something. I will want to see happen. And if the IGF process sees that happening, maybe they may also wish to bring the SIDS along in their process and not have the same voices, the same countries, and the large groups of people dominating the smaller voices every year. So I think that’s something I want to say. I’m saying it here. It’s good for them to say it in. And I hope that we’ll fix that with the GDG process. Clean talk, bad manners. Thanks.

Moderator:
Thanks a lot, Tracy. I’m going to ask the panel for their indulgence. Ms. Carol Roach from the Bahamas, she is with us in the room. And she has to leave. So I want to give her an opportunity to say a few words before she has to go. Carol?

Audience:
Good morning, everybody. And I suppose early, early afternoon or late afternoon in different countries. Thank you for indulging me. Carol Roach from the Bahamas, new MAG chair. Keywords that I heard here is the word action. Action, action, action. So we need to put pen to paper, as one of the speakers said, and say what we want. Write a letter. If you want me to present it to the high level panel, I will do so. They are actually looking for input, especially on why you come here every year, even though it seems like SIDS not being heard, but you come every year. Why is it that you come every year? What you would like to be, what you wanted to be seen more, what you want improvements on, what’s your take on the GDC. And they want this in writing so that they could forward it to the co-facilitators. So I encourage you to do so. The second thing is capacity building. If we’re going to have our parliamentarians or whoever, our missions, go forward to make a vote or to negotiate, they need to know what they’re negotiating. I gave an example. Let me not use my country, because next thing I might not get back in. But I think that a lot of times, persons in missions, they go to meetings, they take notes. technology person or a human rights person or so on, sometimes those notes mean nothing to people. You would find that those notes come to the relevant department when it’s time for your government to make a decision and to give their input and to sign. It’s not fair. We have to start now in preparing our parliamentarians, our missions. So somehow we need to get funding, we need to push the IGF to get some capacity building at that level. So those are just the two things that I have to say and I am definitely here for you. Thank you.

Moderator:
Thank you so much for that, Carol. I’m not sure if you’re going off to another meeting. Yes, I know how it goes. Okay, thank you very much. Still continuing with question three, I come to you now, Quinton.

Quintin Chou-Lambert:
Yeah, so what can be the real benefits of a GDC? And maybe I can pick up this question around review and follow-up. So obviously, again, it’s speculative, but if there is an ambitious GDC with commitments and actions, then how is it reviewed and followed up? And maybe I can just take a moment to explain the proposal by the Secretary General for creating a space for that to happen, because that then speaks to how the IGF might relate to that space, how other forum might relate to that space. And it was named Digital Cooperation Forum. The name doesn’t matter that much, but the concept is that it’s a space for review and follow-up, and this could address three different issues. The first is the issue of gaps in the existing digital governance landscape for considering issues like… AI governance, human rights, things like mis and disinformation. And what this central place could be is a place for pooling all of those issues. So internet governance issues that emerged through the IGF could then be injected in there. In fact, the Secretary General created this IGF leadership panel to serve as a bridge or a channel from the IGF into the UN processes. And then other initiatives like the HR Human Rights Advisory Mechanism or the AI advisory body can also feed into this kind of space for review and follow-up. So it addresses some of the gaps. The second thing this would address is this issue of capacity and fragmented governance. And actually having one place where countries can come together to look at issues defragments the governance. By bringing all the strands into one place, it allows countries to focus in a holistic way on digital governance issues instead of running around the world from meeting to meeting, chasing off all these different discussions, some of which may or may not lead to decisions. And then the third thing it does is I would say it kind of preserves and protects the special characters of these different areas. I was, I did not come, but Chengatai showed me the video of the music night here on, I think it was day one or day two. And it seems to me, I’ve heard the word creative chaos associated with IGF. It does seem as the first time at IGF, there is a special spirit to IGF where there is this feeling where there’s an organic feeling to it, where free discussions can be had on being impolite, but saying what we feel. And those are very important, especially when it comes to technical discussions of the technical community where it really needs to solve problems quickly. And one risk and concern of bringing these politicized discussions around hate speech, misinformation, human rights, AI. governance into places like the IGF, you know, data protection and exploitation, is that it can suddenly change the feeling of the discussion and, you know, change the spirit of IGF. And so for these three reasons, you know, this new proposal to have a space to review and follow up GDC actions and commitments, addressing the gaps that the existing fora do not meet because of technological developments, defragmenting the governance so that countries who have limited resources can concentrate them on the central place where they can see everything and participate with a strong voice in everything and preserving the unique character and the spirit of IGF. This is possible, but it’s only possible if there is ambition and unity among the member states, those countries who have an interest. Perhaps SIDS sees itself as one of those kind of groupings. And if so, it would be very good to see those voices being, you know, raised loud in the GDC process so that those interests can be reflected in the outcome document. Thank you.

Olga Cavalli:
Okay, very interesting what you said. So you missed the music. You didn’t see me singing. You didn’t see me singing. That’s remarkable. It’s a joke, I’m joking. I did sing, but okay. I think it’s very, I love music and I think the music is really a way to bridge any gap. And it’s interesting what you mentioned that bringing gaps, bridging gaps in between the different process is very challenging for, especially for developing countries, having human resources to follow all these processes. What we have done at the Argentina level in my times of working for the government and as an academic is trying to arrange meetings where we all gather together with the delegates that then will participate. But at the same time, these processes are multiplicating and sometimes the delegations are overwhelmed, especially countries that don’t have bigger delegations. So that is challenging. What we have also found as useful is working at the regional level, for example, in between countries of Mercosur, which is Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay, and Brazil, working with associations, internet association, or different associations for telecommunications or technical bodies. It is challenging, but as far as I understand, the process is towards some coordination or concentration of all these processes. So that would be beneficial, even though I think the beauty of the IGF should be preserved.

Moderator:
Thank you for those comments and that contribution, Olga. I now go over to Michelle and our online panelists. Yes, thank you. Otis, can we hear from you first on the same question, and then Shernan, please?

Otis Osbourne:
OK, thank you, Michelle. Orange, I’m going to begin by cautiously saying that no one can dispute the power and influence of UN directives, and that since governments will follow through eventually, especially since the digital economy has been touted as a means of realizing the 2030 SDGs. However, discussions at the UN level are exclusive, a level so high and out of touch that a startup entrepreneur or a university student, unless, of course, it’s a research paper, an assignment, would not say to themselves, let’s see what’s being discussed and proposed. at the UN today. The objectives of the IGF are still relevant, though duplicated by the GDC. The IGF is in a unique position to reach everyone from grassroots people and businesses to corporations. IGF is more relatable as internet governance forms part of its name. In fact, at the University of the Commonwealth Caribbean, first-year students conduct research and write their reports on internet governance topics as their first assignment in their Introduction to Computer Essentials course. And one of those topics include generative AI, such as ChatGPT. The importance of internet governance can become real for these students because they, in addition to civil society and businesses, and I’m talking about small, medium-sized businesses, can join a national IGF chapter and become part of the process, rather than become mere mentions in a mass of texts in the GDC policy paper. Thank you.

Moderator:
Thanks. Shannon, please.

Shernon Osepa:
Yes, I think by now we have been discussing IGF. We know, more or less, what is the IGF after, let’s say, 18 years. The GDC is still something that needs to be developed, so we’re not sure, we’re not certain what it is as yet. But I think it’s very important for us to, whatever process we would like to focus on, the people must become better of what we’re trying to do. And with the people in this particular case, we are focusing on the SIDS. So SIDS must become better. So whatever direction we are heading, our people in the region, small island development states, they must become better of the process that we are going to focus on. And I think at the end of the day, if we can focus on, let’s say, economic, especially economic development, that is very important. We know that, for example, the GDC will be focusing on the SDGs 8, 9, and 10, focusing on jobs, economic growth, and infrastructure. So these are the areas that we should be focusing on, because these are the needs that we are having in our jurisdictions. And not to forget, let’s say, the big challenge that we’re seeing nowadays with respect to climate change, natural disasters, hurricanes, and so on, because it doesn’t make sense if we continue to build all these infrastructures and we don’t, I mean, we cannot fight against nature to a certain extent. But while we are trying to build infrastructure, and then climate change can just destroy everything in just a few seconds. So we need to find the right balance, how we can, while we are still trying to focus on the SDGs. SDGs 8, 9, and 10, to focus a bit on climate change as well, and not to forget, let’s say, collaboration, partnership, which is the SDG 17 that I haven’t heard being mentioned today, but I think it’s also very important for us to focus on. And in addition to that, what I already did mention, we know more or less what our problems are. Let’s start focusing, identify them, and to see how we can bring solutions in collaboration to others for our very specific problems that we are facing. So that’s basically what I wanted to share. Thank you.

Moderator:
Thank you. Back to you, Joel. Thank you very much, Michelle. We’re now going to open the floor for questions and comments from those in the audience and those online as well. For those on site, please go to the microphone, state your name and the organization you represent, and make your contributions.

Audience:
Good morning. My name is Mahesh Perra from Sri Lanka, a small island in the South Asia region. Actually, we have been doing our digital – I mean, this forum is all about equitable framework for developing countries on digital transformation. So, I mean, now when it comes to Sri Lanka, now we have been doing many digital strategies over the last 20 years, two decades, but the country is yet to achieve many things. But now we see IGF, CD, the digital – what you call global digital compact, and WSIS. Even – I mean, many other international platforms are trying to set standards, you know, what to achieve to make citizen satisfied, I mean, in terms of citizen-centric – to build citizen-centric governments, citizen-centric nations, to leapfrog from where we are to the next level. Now, when you see these standards, they talk about on what aspect, but hardly they talk about – to who and how aspect. So when it comes to my suggestion and the request from the esteemed panel, is there any way that we could talk more on who aspect as well as how aspect? Who is supposed to do these things? Because the government, if you take my government, the government is busy with fighting the status quo, I mean, the operational activities. I mean, who should drive these initiatives? Because now when it comes to Sri Lanka, we already have a new digital strategy, digital transformation strategy. But now over the last two decades, we implemented, but there are many gaps. Now who should drive these initiatives? Is it one government organization or multiple organizations who should drive? Can’t we have sort of frameworks or best practices into these guidelines? And then when it comes to the how aspect, how we should do it, whether we should do it with the local parliaments, whether local parliaments should get involved in monitoring and evaluation on these measures, or how we should establish. Now when it comes to SDGs, now how we are going to make these initiatives sustainable over the long run and to bring the citizen in the forefront and keep citizens satisfied, fulfilled in all these initiatives. So my concern is who and how aspect. Thank you.

Moderator:
Thank you very much. Nigel?

Audience:
Thank you, Jewel. I’m Nigel Kasimir, Deputy Secretary General for the Caribbean Telecommunications Union. I rushed to follow the gentleman from Sri Lanka because the comment I wanted to make, I think, would fall straight into the issues that he’s raising. I heard comments about identifying shortcomings of the IGF and so on. But there’s also some good from the IGF. think is good from the IGF was the outreach and the development of this network of national and regional initiatives. Because maybe some issues might be global, but many issues are regional or national, as the case might be. So in terms of the what and the who and the how, it’s not a one size fits all answer. So I would suggest as well, Quinton talked about the GDCA establishing some sort of a coordination mechanism. I’m going to suggest that there should be some outreach in that as well, and maybe some encouragement of national and regional type of initiatives in the same vein, so that these groups can share with one another, and maybe find some common principles, and maybe find some special principles that might not apply globally. But I think that particular aspect of the outreach is a key point, a key benefit out of the IGF, and we should keep that in mind in any of the implementations coming out of the GDC. One last thing I’ll say, since we’re focusing on SIDS, is that one might say SIDS is an interest group, and it is, because there are these special things. But even within SIDS, it’s not all one size fits all. Because one thing is about the Caribbean, the Caribbean, small islands, and so on. One thing is about the Pacific, small islands spread out. But the scale is not comparable. Whereas we might have populations that might be comparable, the distances we’re talking about are not. It’s a lot easier to make a business case in the Caribbean for something like submarine cable than in the Pacific. So the local aspects of the problems and solutions need to be taken into account and we need to structurally build that into whatever we’re doing. Thank you.

Moderator:
Thank you very much for that, Nigel. Yes, please, and please keep it short. We’ve got like five minutes left and I still want to get some takeaways from the panel.

Audience:
Very quickly, I’m Samir from Sri Lanka, working for the largest telecom company, so we see what’s going on on the data side. So I was going through the digital compact policy brief, I caught my attention, something caught my attention, very interesting. It’s data divide. It says data flow will grow by 400% by 2026. The negative side of it is developing countries risk becoming mere providers. Maybe seen as a telco, you know, telecom company sitting in the data, we see to some extent as well. My question to the panelists is the experts views on the GDC, what are the kind of interventions you see to handle this data divide, what’s mentioned in the policy brief?

Moderator:
Rodney, I’m gonna let you take it and I’m just getting my wrap up. We’ve got three minutes.

Rodney Taylor:
Okay, I think there may be more verses specifically on the provisions of the GDC with respect to the last question. So I would like to say in relation to the previous question that I think he’s saying is you think global and not local. So, I mean, at the end of the day, we talk about global cooperation, but it is really for national parliaments to go back and where necessary and trying these things into law. Or just mentioned, for example, the mutually agreed norms for routing cybersecurity. This has to be implemented, not even just locally, but at the level of city operators and the internet service providers. So I think the point is that while we talk, we discuss, we agree on global agreements and so on, it is really for us to go back and do what we need to do to implement. So, I don’t know if you want to ask.

Otis Osbourne:
Yeah, exactly.

Moderator:
I don’t think we have enough time because I just got a three minute wrap up. So I really want to thank everyone for coming. A special thanks to our panelists, Mr. Rodney Taylor, the Secretary General of the Caribbean Telecommunications Union, Ms. Olga Cavalli, Co-founder and Director of South School on Internet Governance, Mr. Quentin Shulambert, Office of the Secretary General’s Envoy on Technology, Tracy Hackshaw, President Trinidad and Tobago Multistakeholder Advisory Group, Serena Teran, Director of Knowledge at the Diplo Foundation, to our online panelists, Mr. Otis Osborne, Department of Information Technology at the University of the Commonwealth Caribbean, and Mr. Shernan Osepa, Internet Governance and Cybersecurity Policy Advisor, and also our online moderator, Michelle Marius. Thank you so much. The things with conversations like this is they always leave you wanting so much more. And we’re all here for today’s the last. So please make sure you exchange numbers and contacts so that we can keep these conversations going. I’m Jo Ford, your moderator. Thank you to everyone. Thank you.

Audience:
Thank you.

Changfeng Chen

The concept of culture lag refers to the delayed adjustment of non-material aspects such as beliefs, values, and norms to changes in material culture, such as technology. This concept aptly describes the situation with generative AI, where technology changes faster than non-material aspects such as regulations. The rapid evolution of generative AI presents challenges in adapting legal and ethical frameworks to address its potential risks and implications.

While some argue for a moratorium on generative AI to allow time for comprehensive regulation and understanding of its implications, this approach is deemed drastic and unlikely to be effective in the long term. The field of generative AI is constantly evolving, and a blanket ban would hinder progress and innovation. Instead, flexible and adaptive regulatory frameworks are needed to keep up with technological advancements and address potential risks holistically.

China has emerged as a leader in the development and regulation of generative AI. Companies like Baidu, ByteDance, and iFlight Tech are at the forefront of generative AI applications, with their technology being installed on mobile phones and laptops to assist users in decision-making processes, such as choosing a restaurant. China has released interim administrative measures for generative AI services, which demand legitimate data sourcing, respect for rights, and risk management. This highlights China’s commitment to responsible AI development and regulation.

However, there are concerns about the fairness of the regulatory framework in China. Some argue that the heaviest responsibility is placed on generative AI providers, while other stakeholders such as data owners, computing power suppliers, and model designers also play critical roles. Allocating the majority of responsibility to providers is viewed as unfair and may hinder collaboration and innovation in the field.

Generative artificial intelligence has the potential to significantly contribute to the education of young people and foster a new perspective on rights. By harnessing the power of generative AI, educational institutions can create dynamic and personalized learning experiences for students. Additionally, young people have the right to access and use new technologies for learning and development, and it is the responsibility of adults and professionals to guide them in leveraging these technologies effectively and ethically.

Efforts have already been initiated to promote these rights for young people, such as UNESCO’s Media and Information Literacy Week, which aims to enhance young people’s skills in critically analyzing and engaging with media and information. This reflects the international community’s recognition of the importance of digital literacy and ensuring equitable access to information and technology for young people.

Promoting professionalism in the field of artificial intelligence is crucial. Professionalism entails adhering to a set of standards and behaviors such as reliability, high standards, ethical behavior, respect, responsibility, and teamwork. By promoting professionalism, the field of AI can operate within ethical boundaries and ensure the responsible development and use of AI technologies.

It is also important to have a professional conscience towards new technologies that respects multicultural values. While it is necessary to respect and consider regionalized values and regulations, there should also be a broader perspective in the technical field to promote global collaboration and understanding.

In conclusion, the concept of culture lag accurately describes the challenges faced in regulating generative AI amidst rapid technological advancements. A moratorium on generative AI is seen as drastic and ineffective, and instead, flexible and adaptive regulatory frameworks should be established. China is leading in the development and regulation of generative AI, but concerns about fairness in the regulatory framework exist. Generative AI has the potential to revolutionize education and empower young people, but it requires responsible guidance from adults and professionals. Efforts are underway to promote these rights, such as UNESCO’s Media and Information Literacy Week. Promoting professionalism and a professional conscience towards new technologies is crucial in ensuring ethical and responsible AI development.

Audience

The debate surrounding the responsible usage and regulation of AI, particularly generative AI, is of significant importance in today’s rapidly advancing technological landscape. The summary highlights several key arguments and perspectives on this matter.

One argument put forth emphasises the need to utilise the existing AI tools and guidelines until specific regulations for generative AI are developed. It is acknowledged that constructing an entirely new ethical framework for generative AI would be a time-consuming process. Therefore, it is deemed wise to make use of the current available resources and regulations until more comprehensive guidelines for generative AI are established.

Another argument draws attention to the potential risks associated with the use of generative models. Specifically, it highlights the risks of inaccuracy and unreliable sources that are made up by these models. Of concern is the fact that many individuals, especially young people, are inclined to utilise generative models due to their efficiency. However, they may be unaware of the potential risks involved. Thus, it is suggested that raising awareness among the public, especially the younger generation, about the potential risks of generative AI is crucial.

Advocacy for the importance of raising awareness regarding the use of generative AI models is another notable observation. It is argued that greater awareness can be achieved through quality education and the establishment of strong institutions. By providing individuals with a deeper understanding of generative AI and its potential risks, it is believed that they will be better equipped to make responsible and informed choices.

The responsible coding and designing of AI systems are also stressed in the summary. It is essential to approach the development of AI systems with a sense of responsibility, both in terms of coding practices and design considerations. Implementing responsible practices ensures that AI systems are developed ethically and do not pose unnecessary risks to individuals or society as a whole.

One perspective questions whether self-regulation alone is sufficient for responsible AI or if an official institution should have a role in examining AI technologies. The argument here revolves around the idea that while self-regulation may be important, there is a need for external oversight to ensure the accountability and responsible usage of AI technologies.

It is worth noting that AI systems are no longer solely the domain of big tech companies. The accessibility of AI development has increased, allowing anyone, including criminals and young individuals, to develop AI models. This accessibility raises concerns regarding the potential misuse or irresponsible development of AI technologies.

The feasibility of regulating everyone as AI development becomes more accessible is called into question. It is argued that regulating every individual may not be a practical solution. With the ease of developing AI models without extensive technical expertise, alternative approaches to regulation may need to be explored.

Regulating the data that can be used for AI, both for commercial and official usage, is seen as a possibility. However, regulating the development of AI models is deemed less feasible. This observation highlights the challenges in finding a balance between ensuring responsible AI usage while still fostering innovation and development in the field.

In conclusion, the expanded summary provides a comprehensive overview of the arguments and perspectives surrounding responsible AI usage and regulation. It underscores the importance of utilising existing AI tools and guidelines, raising awareness about the potential risks of generative models, and promoting responsible coding and design practices. The debate surrounding self-regulation versus external oversight, the increasing accessibility of AI development, and the challenges of regulating AI models is also considered.

Moderator – Yves Poullet

UNESCO has made significant strides in regulating AI ethics. In November 2022, it published a recommendation on AI ethics, demonstrating its commitment to addressing the challenges posed by artificial intelligence. This recommendation has already been applied to CHAT-GPT, indicating that UNESCO is actively implementing its ethical guidelines. The director of the SIH UNESCO department, Gabriela Ramos, is leading the implementation efforts. Despite her absence at an event, she sent a video expressing support and dedication to ensuring the ethical use of AI. Generative AI systems, which include foundation models and applications, require attention from public authorities due to their unique characteristics and potential risks. There is concern about potential biases and inaccuracies in the language used by generative AI models, which deal with large amounts of big data, including language translation and speech recognition. The future of generative AI is seen as potentially revolutionary, but there are also risks associated with these systems, such as the manipulation of individuals and job security concerns. Generative AI systems also pose risks to democracy, as they can spread misinformation and disinformation. Public regulation or some form of regulation is necessary to address these risks, with discussions on the feasibility of a moratorium and different approaches taken by leading countries. The ethical values set by UNESCO are widely accepted worldwide, but the challenge lies in their enforcement. Standardization and quality assessment are proposed as effective mechanisms to reinforce ethical values. The idea of AI localism, where local communities propose AI regulations aligned with their cultural values, is appreciated. Concerns are raised about language discrimination and the poor performance of AI systems in languages other than dominant ones. Efforts to address these issues, such as Finland’s establishment of big data in the Finnish language, are encouraged. In conclusion, UNESCO’s efforts in regulating AI ethics and the need for public regulation and enforcement mechanisms are highlighted, along with the challenges and potential harms associated with generative AI systems.

Dawit Bekele

Generative AIs are advanced artificial intelligence systems that can generate human-like content. These models are built on large-scale neural networks such as GPT (Generative Pre-trained Transformer). By learning from extensive amounts of data, generative AIs can produce outputs that closely resemble human-created content. However, they may also perpetuate or amplify existing biases if the training data contains biases or unrepresentative samples.

Despite these concerns, generative AI technology presents significant opportunities for innovation. Researchers and public authorities are actively working to address the ethical issues inherent in generative AI, with discussions taking place at UNESCO. Regulatory frameworks are needed to ensure transparency and accountability in the development and deployment of these models.

Generative AI systems also have the potential to impact the education system negatively. They can provide answers to learners immediately, potentially replacing the need for human assistance. This raises concerns about the displacement of human workers and disruption of traditional job markets.

It is crucial to have local responses tailored to the specific needs and values of each society when implementing generative AI. Societies should have the autonomy to decide how they use the technology based on their specific contextual considerations. However, certain countries may face challenges in handling generative AI due to a lack of resources and knowledge. Organizations like UNESCO should empower and educate societies about AI, providing necessary resources and knowledge to ensure responsible use. Big tech companies also have a responsibility to financially support less-resourced countries in adopting and managing generative AI technology.

In conclusion, generative AI offers significant opportunities for innovation, but also raises ethical concerns. Regulatory frameworks, local responses, and support from organizations like UNESCO and big tech companies are necessary for responsible and equitable implementation of generative AI technology.

Gabriela Ramos

The analysis reveals potential negative implications of AI that necessitate effective governance systems and regulation. Concerns arise from gender and racial biases found in generative AI models, such as Chat GPT-3. This emphasizes the urgent need for ethical guidelines and frameworks to govern AI development and deployment.

UNESCO has conducted an ethical analysis of generative AI models. This analysis underscores the importance of implementing proper governance and regulation measures. The impact of AI on industries and infrastructure aligns with Sustainable Development Goal 9. However, without appropriate guidelines, the risks and consequences associated with AI deployment can be detrimental.

To mitigate these risks, UNESCO recommends the implementation of ethical impact assessments. These assessments foresee the potential consequences of AI systems and ensure adherence to ethical standards. Considering the rapid advancement of AI technology, ethical reflection is crucial in addressing questions and concerns related to AI risks.

In addition to ethical considerations, the concentration of AI power among a few companies and countries is a cause for concern. The impressive capabilities of generative AI raise worries about negative social and political implications. Furthermore, legal actions have been taken regarding potential copyright breaches by open AI. It is important to make AI power more inclusive to reduce inequalities, as emphasized by Sustainable Development Goal 10.

Moreover, countries need to be well-prepared to handle legal and regulatory issues pertaining to AI. UNESCO is actively collaborating with 50 governments globally to establish readiness and ethical impact assessment methodologies. Additionally, UNESCO, in partnership with the renowned Alan Turing Institute, is launching an AI ethics observatory. These initiatives aim to support countries in developing robust frameworks for managing AI technologies.

In conclusion, the analysis emphasizes the need for effective governance systems and regulation to address potential negative implications of AI, such as biases and concentration of power. Implementation of UNESCO’s recommendations on ethical impact assessments and ensuring a more inclusive distribution of AI power are crucial in mitigating risks. Collaboration with governments and launching the AI ethics observatory demonstrate UNESCO’s commitment to harmonizing AI technologies with ethical considerations on a global scale.

Marielza Oliveira

The International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFAP) has a crucial role in advocating for ethical, legal, and human rights issues in the realm of digital technologies, particularly artificial intelligence (AI). They recognize that advancements in AI, specifically generative AI, have significant implications for global societies. As a result, IFAP emphasizes the importance of examining the impacts of AI through the lens of ethics and human rights to ensure responsible and equitable use of AI.

IFAP is committed to ensuring access to information for all individuals. They endorse a new strategic plan that highlights the importance of digital technologies, including AI, for our fundamental right to access information. IFAP aims to bridge the digital divide and ensure that everyone can benefit from the opportunities presented by these technologies.

Additionally, IFAP focuses on building capacities to address the ethical concerns arising from the use of frontier technologies. They recognize the potential of inclusive, equitable, and knowledgeable societies driven by technology. To achieve this, IFAP supports and encourages research into the implications of these frontier technologies. They assist institutions in making AI technologies accessible and beneficial to everyone, while also raising awareness about the risks associated with their use. By examining and understanding these risks, IFAP aims to develop effective mechanisms and strategies to address them.

Another important aspect of IFAP’s work is the promotion of the implementation of recommendations on the ethics of AI. They actively engage in discussions and collaborations with stakeholders to design and govern AI based on evidence-based frameworks. IFAP recognizes that a multi-stakeholder approach is essential to create responsible policies and guidelines.

In addition, IFAP actively participates in global dialogues and forums to address digital divides and inequalities. They function as a platform for sharing experiences and best practices in overcoming these challenges. Through these dialogues and forums, IFAP aims to foster collaboration and partnerships to build sustainability and equality across all knowledge societies.

In conclusion, the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFAP) is at the forefront of promoting ethical, legal, and human rights issues in the context of digital technologies, especially AI. They emphasize the need to examine the impacts of AI through ethical and human rights lenses, while also ensuring access to information for all individuals. IFAP supports research into the inclusive and beneficial use of frontier technologies, along with raising awareness about the associated risks. They actively participate in global dialogues and forums to address digital divides and inequalities. Through their collective efforts, IFAP strives to shape a digital future that upholds shared values, sustainability, and equality across knowledge societies.

Fabio Senne

The summary is based on a discussion among speakers regarding the ethical, legal, and social implications of generative AI. They agree that a global forum is necessary to address these issues. Additionally, promoting digital literacy and critical thinking skills among young people is seen as crucial for responsible use of generative AI.

One speaker, Omar Farouk from Bangladesh, emphasizes the need for convening a global forum to discuss the ethical, legal, and social implications of generative AI. This indicates an awareness of the potential risks and challenges associated with this technology.

UNICEF also voices concerns about digital literacy and critical thinking skills. They argue that young people need to be educated about generative AI to be informed users. This highlights the importance of ensuring that individuals understand the potential implications and risks of generative AI, especially as it becomes more prevalent in society.

Another area of concern raised by UNICEF is the impact of generative AI on child protection and empowerment. They express worries about the unknown effects of AI on children and the need to protect and empower them in an AI-driven world.

The importance of more investigations and data in the field of AI is suggested by a speaker working in Brazil with CETIC.br, a UNESCO Category 2 centre. This indicates a recognized need for further research and understanding of AI, as it continues to rapidly develop.

Global digital inequality is identified as a major issue in the discussion. Inequalities in accessing the internet and digital technologies can affect the quality of training data, and languages may not be properly represented in AI models. In addition, there are inequalities within countries that impact the diversity of data used. These concerns highlight the need to address digital inequalities to ensure more inclusive and human-centred AI.

The need for improved AI literacy and education is emphasised. Data from Brazil reveals an underdevelopment of informational skills among children, with many unsure of their ability to assess online information. Therefore, raising awareness and literacy about AI in educational systems is crucial.

There is a call to monitor and evaluate AI, recognising the importance of assessing its impact and making informed decisions. Mention is made of international frameworks from OECD and UNESCO, highlighting the need for global cooperation and collaboration in understanding and regulating AI.

In conclusion, the discussions highlight the need to address the ethical, legal, and social implications of generative AI through a global forum. Promoting digital literacy and critical thinking skills, protecting children, conducting further investigations, addressing digital inequalities, improving AI literacy and education, and monitoring AI are all seen as crucial steps in fostering responsible and inclusive AI development.

Stefan Verhulst

The discussion surrounding Artificial Intelligence (AI) has shifted towards responsible technology development rather than advocating for an outright ban or extensive government intervention. OpenAI, an AI research organisation, argues for closed development to prevent potential misuse and abuse of AI technology. On the other hand, Meta, formerly known as Facebook, supports an open approach to developing generative AI.

Maintaining openness in AI research is considered crucial for advancing the field, despite concerns about potential abuse. AI research has historically been open, leading to significant advancements. Closing off research could create power asymmetries and solidify the current power positions in the AI industry.

Another important aspect of the AI discourse is adopting a rights-based approach towards AI. This includes prioritising principles such as safety, effectiveness, notice and explainability, and considering human alternatives. The Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) has taken a multi-stakeholder approach to developing a Bill of Rights that emphasises these aspects.

In the United States, while there is a self-regulatory and co-regulatory approach to AI governance at the federal level, states and cities have taken a proactive stance. Currently, around 200 bills are being discussed at the state level, and several cities have enacted legislation regarding AI.

Engaging with young people is crucial in addressing AI-related issues. Young people often provide informed solutions and in many countries, they represent the majority of the population. Their deep understanding of AI highlights the need to listen to their preferences and incorporate their solutions. It is believed that engaging with young people can lead to more legitimate and acceptable use of AI. Additionally, innovative methods of engagement aligned with their preferred platforms need to be developed.

The importance of data quality cannot be overlooked when discussing AI, particularly in the context of generative AI. The principle of “garbage in, garbage out” becomes crucial, as the quality of the output is only as good as the quality of the input data. Attention should be focused not only on the AI models themselves but also on creating high-quality data to feed into these models.

Furthermore, open data, open science, and quality statistics have become more important than ever for qualitative generative AI. Prioritising these aspects contributes to the overall improvement and reliability of AI systems.

Overall, the discussion on AI emphasises responsible technology development rather than outright bans or government intervention. Maintaining openness in AI research is seen as crucial for the advancement of the field, although caution must be exercised to address potential risks and abuses. A rights-based approach, proactive governance at the local level, meaningful engagement with young people, and attention to data quality are all key considerations in the development and deployment of AI technology.

Siva Prasad Rambhatia

The analysis explores different perspectives on the impact of Artificial Intelligence (AI) on society. One viewpoint highlights that AI has contributed to the creation and exacerbation of inequalities in society. Specifically, it has had a significant impact on marginalized communities, especially those in the global South. The introduction of AI technologies and applications has reinforced existing social, cultural, and economic barriers, widening the gap between privileged and disadvantaged groups. This sentiment is driven by the assertion that AI, particularly in its current form, creates new types of inequalities and further amplifies existing ones.

Another viewpoint revolves around the negative consequences of generative AI models. These models have the potential to replace various job roles traditionally performed by humans. This phenomenon has raised concerns regarding the social and economic implications of widespread job displacement. In addition, the advent of generative models has been associated with a growing disconnect within societies. As AI takes over certain tasks, the interaction and collaboration between humans may decrease, leading to potential societal fragmentation.

Conversely, there is a positive stance arguing for AI to adopt local or regionally specific approaches and to preserve local knowledge and traditional epistemologies. This perspective highlights the potential benefits of embracing context-specific AI applications that address unique regional challenges. Advocates argue that these approaches can contribute to building more inclusive and equitable knowledge societies. By utilizing local knowledge and traditions, AI can help identify appropriate solutions to complex human problems.

Inclusivity and multiculturalism are also emphasized as essential aspects of AI design. Advocates argue that AI systems must be designed with consideration for marginalized and indigenous communities. By incorporating inclusive practices in AI development, it is possible to mitigate the potential negative impacts and ensure that the benefits of AI are accessible to all.

Additionally, the analysis underscores the importance of documenting and utilizing local knowledge systems in model building. By incorporating local knowledge, AI models can be more effective in addressing local and regional issues. The accumulation of local knowledge can contribute to the development of robust and contextually sensitive AI solutions.

Overall, the analysis highlights the complex and multi-faceted impact of AI on society. While there are concerns about the creation of inequalities and job displacement, there are also opportunities for AI to be inclusive, region-specific, and leverage local knowledge. By considering these various perspectives and incorporating diverse viewpoints, it is possible to shape the development and implementation of AI technologies in a way that benefits all members of society.

Moderator – Yves Poullet:
Thanks also for the remote audience, it is quite clear that you have the floor too during the question and answer and we hope that you will intervene. So perhaps just to start, as you know UNESCO has taken a certain number of initiative and we must underline the importance of this initiative as regards AI ethics regulation. You know that they have published in November 2022 a recommendation on AI ethics and definitely more recently perhaps you have seen that they have published a report about the application of the recommendation to CHAT-GPT and that’s why it is an honour for us to host Gabriela Ramos. Gabriela Ramos is definitely very well known, she is the director of the SIH UNESCO department which is in charge of the AI ethics recommendation implementation. So Gabriela Ramos was unable to join us because of the time difference between Paris and Kyoto but she has sent yesterday a video in order to be present with us. So perhaps you might launch the video.

Gabriela Ramos:
The compass for our work on AI is the recommendation on the ethics of AI that was adopted by 193 countries back in 2021. visual intelligence technologies need to be well aligned with human rights, human dignity, fairness, inclusiveness. And these values that are the ones that we put together for the technologies translate then into principles, principles of accountability, transparency, the rule of law, proportionality, but we do not stop there because all this framework then is translated into very concrete policy recommendations. We have 11 policy chapters that go into the gender issues, data issues, environmental issues, and many more. And those policy areas instruct member states, for example, I’m gonna give you an example, to develop data governance strategies that ensure the continual evaluation of the quality and the training of data, promote open data and data trust, and call members to invest in the creation on gold standards data sets, and ensure that when there is harp, compensation is given related to this information. And the recent release of foundational models, AI models have been meteoric, which had GPT gained 100 million users within the first month of operation. And we have seen a huge amount of excitement around the capabilities of this generative AI. It’s impressive what they can do and what they can offer in terms of the service to the world. But these models have also foregrounded major concerns about potential negative ethical, social, political, and legal implication, and highlighted the urgent need for robust and effective governance systems and regulation. We have conducted our own analysis of generative AI models through the lens of the recommendation and found that a range of ethical concerns related to fairness and non-discrimination and reliability, misinformation, privacy, data protection, the labor market, and many more. anymore with this accelerated pace of issues that we already have identified before. The systems replicate but also massively scale up many of the same ethical and governance challenges of previous generations of AI systems. For example, we have known about the potential of gender and racial biases in AI systems for many years now and we see that the same kind of stereotypes being massively reproduced in the latest systems. For example, narratives generated by GP3 were shown to reinforce gender stereotypes depicting female characters as less powerful and defining them by their physical appearance and family roles. And just last week a researcher at Oxford John Hopkins found that it was impossible for Mid Journey, a commonly used AI image generation tool, to produce a picture of black doctors treating white children. Whatever variation of the prompt used, the system will only produce a picture of a white doctor treating black children. But there are also new and pressing challenges, for example, around issues of authorship and intellectual property rights, as the platform does not quote these sources and lacks transparency on how it works. Legal actions are currently underway to determine, for example, whether open AI breached copyrights by training its model on novels without the permission of the authors. And on the other hand, to decide whether an output of a generative AI model can itself be copyrighted. This is another area where the incredible concentration of economic and now cultural power in the hands of a small group of companies and the small, of course, group of countries need to be addressed in a determined manner to make it more inclusive and more representative of the very diverse world. world in which we live. And then the way in which these current experimental AI tools have been unleashed in the public provides a primary example of why it is imperative for member states to implement the recommendation of UNESCO to ensure that actors identify, clarify, and mitigate some of the risks of harm from such models before rushing them to deploy them in the markets. And to address this challenge, UNESCO has developed an ethical impact assessment. And this assessment facilitates the prediction of consequences and mitigation of risk of AI systems via a multi-stakeholder engagement before a system is released to the public. And allowing those developing and procuring AI systems to avoid harmful outcomes, but at least to think about them, to have a tool by which we can understand what the systems can do, and what needs to be enhanced, and what needs to be corrected. And the ethical reflection by itself is a vital tool to comprehensively address the questions that everybody has in their minds right now about the risk of AI systems and how we can identify them. And we are currently piloting the ethical impact assessment as well as another tool that we were asked to produce in the recommendation when this was adopted by our member states, the readiness assessment methodology. This is to see how much countries are well prepared to deal with the legal and regulatory and governance issues related to AI. And we’re now working with 50 governments around the world to deploy this tool. The results of this assessment will be made public on the AI ethics UNESCO observatory that we are launching with the Alan Turing Institute, but also with the ITU. And this is going to be an online platform to share information and good practices of implementation efforts across the globe, while creating an inter-governmental partnership. space for people working on this domain to collaborate and actually to raise awareness, to understand better, to look at what works and what doesn’t, and then to translate that into actions on the ground to equip ourselves, the governments, the people, civil society, to deal with these technologies better. And in this sense, I’m also glad to share with you that we started a path-breaking project with the Dutch Digital Infrastructure Authority that is supported by the European Commission DG Reform to enhance the competencies and capacities of the Dutch and European competent authorities to supervise AI, and this, above all, considering that the European Commission is going to be implementing soon their AI acts, and they need institutions that are well equipped to deal with the issues. And here again, the large language systems and generative models are more broadly are high on everyone’s agenda, and the detailed data and analysis from this project will form the empirical basis for our development of a model governance framework, bringing together the different elements of an ethical AI ecosystem to help guide governments in developing robust governance systems aligned with the recommendation. We will present this framework at the Global Forum on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence that is going to take place in Slovenia in the spring of 2024, and I’m looking forward to see you all there to continue learning together and to continue building together the capacities to deal with these technologies. Thank you very much.

Moderator – Yves Poullet:
Thanks Gabriela for this marvellous introduction. I think this introduction will help us to fix exactly the scope of our discussion, and as you have seen, there are a lot of… challenges raised by the AI generative system. Just the first question, perhaps it would be quite interesting to see among the person present who has already used AI generative system, like Chai Tripathi, like Bert, like Rernie, like Coco, that’s a Korean generative system, who has already used a generative system. Rézeant? I told everybody has already used it. You remember in November 22, Sam Alkman, OpenAI CEO, put into the market for the general public certain Chai Tripathi services. Perhaps it is quite interesting to remember that three years before, Sam Alkman said that Chai Tripathi must be reserved for professional users only because it was too dangerous for large public. He has modified his mind. It’s his business, that’s normal, but perhaps it’s quite interesting to recall it. This initiative was a full success, 1 million users, less than five days after the launching. Since this moment, we assist to a multiplication of applications supported by what we call foundation models, like Google Bart, Chai Tripathi, definitely, the Baidu Rernie, the Korean Co-GPT, the Meta Open Pre-Trained Transformer, and another. What is quite interesting is that all these foundation models are general purpose models and they are not used for a specific purpose, but it is quite clear that apart from this foundational model there is a lot of application developed by the same companies or by other companies. And now we are using this application. For instance, my students are used to chat GPT for preparing their hands to the memory definitively and it is quite clear that if you feel alone, please find with companion chatbots like Replica, Chai and others, which understand you like your best friends or friends. If as company you need to develop a marketing strategy, it is very easy to use Jasper as an application for finding the right slogan and definitively the right logo. If you are work seekers, if you want to write a successful letter of motivation, please use a generative AI application. So generative AI systems are more and more used. I would like to give definitively the floor to David in order to answer to a certain number of questions and my question would be the following. First, generative AI systems, I mean both foundation models and generative AI applications are definitively AI systems. Could you please in a few minutes explain the peculiarities of this system among the other AI systems and definitively link it with the peculiarities. Is that possible to explain why these generative AI systems are used? system need a specific attention distinct from that afforded to the other AI system, including for our public authorities. I have another question. The application of language model, large language models, are diverse, include text compression, text-to-speech conversion, language translation, chatbots, virtual assistants, speech recognition. They are working with big data. Which ones? Is there a problem with the language used within this big data? And last one, how do you see the future of this genuine TVI? Is that a revolution? Mr. Beckley, you have the floor.

Dawit Bekele:
Thank you very much. So generative AIs are advanced artificial intelligence systems designed to generate human-like content, including text, images, and even multimedia. You have probably heard and I’m sure used applications such as Chaptivity that answers to your questions, almost as if there is a human being at the other side, at the other end of the line. There are also applications that change photos into artwork, translate people’s speech into another language in real time. For example, you have heard probably the news recently, the Secretary General of the UN speaking in a language that he doesn’t speak. So there are so many applications that generative AIs have already shown us. These models are built on large-scale neural networks, such as GBT, and are trained on vast data sets to learn the patterns and structures of human language and other forms of data. The key peculiarity of the systems lies in their ability to generate coherent and contextually relevant content on their own, based on input they receive. Unlike search engines, for example, that we have been using for quite some time now and that provide useful responses, but that are often not in the form that you would expect from a response from a human being. Generative AI responses are very much like what you would expect from another human interlocutor. This has, of course, numerous benefits since the output of generative AI applications can be used almost directly by humans, unlike what you would get from search engines that require human interpretation, filtering, formatting, and often rewriting. But it also brings, as it has been already said by the previous speakers, many challenges that public authorities will have to deal with. One significant aspect that requires specific attention is the potential for biases and ethical concerns with the generated content. These models learn, as it has been said, from diverse and sometimes biased data sets, reflecting societal prejudices present in the training data. Consequently, the output of these models may inadvertently perpetuate or amplify existing biases, such as race biases, race concerns about fairness, and the reinforcement of harmful stereotypes. Already, the use of AI systems in law enforcement raised so much concern that some authorities banned the use of AI, at least for the time being. Another important consideration is the misuse of generative AI for malicious purposes, such as the creation of deepfake content that are indistinguishable from real content. In particular, the technology’s ability to mimic human-like communication poses risks to the integrity of information and has implications for issues like misinformation, fake news, and online. manipulations. An aspect that I believe should also be a concern is that it renders many societal tools obsolete. For example, as a former teacher myself, I’m concerned by how generative AI affects education. Learning, at least as we understand it today, requires personal work from the learner that needs to be further evaluated by our instructor. Generative AI can now provide an answer to the learner immediately and without effort. And the answer is so much indistinguishable from what a human being would give that it is almost impossible for the instructor to know whether the student has given the answer or it is generated by AI. This will have a major and negative impact on the quality of education and create major frictions within schools and universities. Generative AI can also render many jobs obsolete, probably more than any technology in the past. There’s almost no industry that has at least a few of its jobs replaced by generative AI. Generative AI can do the work of computer programmers, content creators, legal assistants, teachers, artists, financial advisors, and so forth. This can create a major havoc in societies like we are currently seeing in the movie industry in the US, where writers are on strike, in most parts, for fear of losing their jobs to AI. So public authorities need to pay attention to these systems for several reasons. First, there is a need for regulatory frameworks to address ethical concerns, as has been said by the keynote speaker, and mitigate potential misuse of generative AI. Second, public authorities play a crucial role in ensuring transparency and accountability in the development and deployment of these models, and I’m very happy that there are already discussions at UNESCO around this. Third, there is a growing need for public policy that addresses the impact of generative AI on various sectors, including jobs, privacy, intellectual property, and cybersecurity. In general, the peculiarities of generative AI and its massive impact on our societies demand specific attention from public authorities to establish ethical guidelines, ensure transparency, and address the broader societal impact. applications of these powerful technologies. I don’t think we can stop AI’s progress, but I also do not believe that we should let it develop without setting any boundaries. To your other questions on language models, there are many language models like GPT-3, and they are indeed applied across various tasks in different applications, such as text completion, text to speech conversion, language translation, et cetera. These language models, especially large ones like GPT-3, are trained on vast data sets of human language using languages coming from a broad range of texts from internet, books, articles, and various sources. Of course, these sources are not representative of the whole world, and they have biases and so on. So there are some concerns. One significant issue, as indicated earlier, is biases present in the training data. If the training data contains biases or unrepresented samples, the model can inadvertently produce biases outputs, reinforcing existing societal prejudice, raising many ethical questions. There are also concerns about potential misuse of these models or generating deceptive or harmful content. We have already seen how social media can create chaos in our societies by spreading misinformation. I come from a country that has been hardly affected by this misinformation. And I’m very afraid of what can happen with AI. Many people have difficulty to distinguish between the truth and the fake news. fake since they trust what they see in writing. Generative AI is taking this problem to a new high with deep fake where it is possible to make anyone say anything blurring even more further the line between the truth and the false. This will have an impact on our society that might be catastrophic if not mitigated well in advance. So for the future of generative AI, despite the many dangers of the generative AI, I believe that there are immense opportunities ahead. I believe that we can expect the development of even more powerful and sophisticated generative models. Moreover, future generative AI models may be fine-tuned to specific industries or domains, allowing for more specialized applications such as in healthcare, finance, law, and more. I also believe that the researchers and public authorities will attempt to address the concerns such as the ethical issues. And I’m happy to hear that UNESCO has taken this issue very seriously. We have already seen almost unprecedented attention from authorities such as the U.S. Congress, EU Commission, and UNESCO to understand and establish a framework for the development of a generative AI. UNESCO, for example, have done a number of work and developed a number of recommendations on the ethics of artificial intelligence that has been adopted by all its 193 members that has been indicated by the keynote speaker. My personal hope is that we learn from the cost of our inaction on social media, and researchers as well as public authorities will act as fast as the development of AI so that the risks are mitigated. and the opportunities outweigh the risks. Thank you.

Moderator – Yves Poullet:
Thanks a lot, David. It was very clear. Your presentation was very nice and develop what we have in mind. It means that generative AI system are multiplying the risk already linked with AI system. And you have developed a certain number of this risk and you have appeal to a public regulation or at least to a regulation. It is quite clear that generative AI application are bringing a lot of benefits for all of us, citizen and perhaps societies. But at the same time, as you have said, as you have underlined it, their development are source of arms, individual arms as regard definitively financial arms as regard definitively also physical arms. I would like just to mention a Belgian case, a recent Belgian sad case. In my country, definitely an engineer, civil engineer, perhaps a bit depressive has decided after nice and nice discussion with a company on chatbots to commit suicide. I think it’s a risk of manipulation we might fear from AI generative system. And perhaps we have to create a new right, the right to mental integrity. There are other, definitely there are other risk, there are risk of privacy as regard intellect property. And if we think about human rights. As you have noticed, it is quite clear that we must also speak about the problem of the right to job. And right to job is definitely compromised when you see the problem of the translator, when you see the problem of certain social artists. Definitely, it’s not only a question of individual arms. It’s also a question of collective arms. And the second part of our discussion after the QA time will develop the problem of discrimination, discrimination between countries, between regions, between definitively certain communities. We will come back on that issue. But you have also mentioned, and that’s very important, the problem for our democracy, and especially as we have the problem of multiplication of misinformation and disinformation, especially with the possibility for all people to create deepfakes. How to face all this risk? And I come now to the following speakers. How to face this risk? It is quite clear that you have already mentioned a certain number of initiatives from UNESCO. But it is quite clear that we have also to turn our attention, to pay attention to what happens in the two leader countries of AI. I mean China and definitively US. And to speak there about, I will ask to Changfen Chen from Tsinghua University in China and Stefan Verhulst, which is professor at the New York University and the director of the governance laboratory and editor-in-chief of Data and Policy, to comment. And on this point, I have a certain number of questions. Perhaps you remember that there was. a very important open letter signed by more than 35,000 people, including a very important CEO of a high-tech company like Elon Musk, asking for a moratorium. Is that a good solution? Do you think this moratorium is feasible? They have asked to stop the development of generative AI systems during six months. Do you think it’s a good solution? Another problem is definitely the question to know to what extent we need a regulatory, a public regulatory answer. And on that point, Changfen, it is very interesting to know a bit more about the China’s initiative – China was the first to elaborate administrative measures, what they call administrative measures – and I would like to know a bit more what does it mean, administrative measures as regard generative artificial intelligence services. They have done that, and definitely the EU has also decided to have legislation, not administrative measures, but to have comprehensive legislation about AI, and more precisely, with the recent European Parliament amendments about generative AI systems. So I would like to see what China’s position is. And as regards definitely the US, they have adopted another approach. The US has published the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy in October 2022, a blueprint for the AI Bill of Rights. This blueprint is definitely very interesting, but it is more a sort of co-regulation discussion and negotiation between public authorities and the big tech sector, definitely perhaps. And in that blueprint, there are a certain number of recommendations about how to build up, how to build up AI. AI system and which ethical values we have to follow. So, Changfen first, and perhaps after that, Stephan, take the floor on those issues. Changfen, you have the floor.

Changfeng Chen:
Thanks. Thanks for Professor Yves Pollard’s efforts. Nice to see you all, friends. It’s my honor to attend this session. Before discussing the question, I would like to mention a concept, a concept about culture lag. Culture lag is a term coined by sociologist William Alban to describe the delayed adjustment of non-material culture to changes in material culture in the 1920s. It refers to the phenomenon where change in material culture, such as technology tools, occur more rapidly than changes in non-material culture, such as beliefs, values, norms, including regulation. I think culture lag is describing the situation when generative AI appears. We are excited, and meanwhile, we are panicked. The capabilities for these new technologies break through the scope of traditional legal regulations. So first, I just said we need a regulation for generative AI. It is a powerful technology with the potential to be used for good or for harm. But generative artificial intelligence is still developing, and even the scientists and the engineers who created it cannot fully explain and predict its future. Therefore, we need to regulate it prudently rather than nip it in the cradle through regulation. So it’s the reason because after I introduce some policies and regulations, I can’t judge something. So I just speak this kind of thing first, and at the beginning of a new thing, we need to be more inclusive and have the wisdom to calmly deal with the mistakes it causes that only shows human civilization and self-confidence. So the question is, monitoring on generative AI would be a temporary ban on the development and the use of this technology. This would be a drastic measure, and it is unlikely to be effective in the long term. Generative AI is a powerful technology with the potential to be used for good, and it would be unwise to stifle its development entirely. And then I think a global regulatory model for generative AI would be ideal, but it will take time to develop and implement. So just talking about in China, artificial intelligence, including generative intelligence, is developing very rapidly in China and has been widely used. Generative AI applications from Baidu, from ByteDance, from iFlight Tech, and other companies installed on my mobile iPhone, mobile phone and laptop, while using GPT, BARD, and BIN at the same time. When I choose something in my life, like when I choose restaurant in Beijing or in Shanghai for a party with my friends, these applications always help me. In the field of education, the artificial intelligence applications developed by iFlight Tech are already helping teachers update their curriculum, correct students’ homework, and provide personalized teaching guidance. So China has been At the forefront of developing and regulating generative AI, in 2022, China released the interim administry measures for generative artificial intelligence services. These measures require providers of generative AI service to source data and foundation models from legitimate sources, respect the intellectual property rights of others, process personal information with appropriate consent or legal basis, establish and implement risk management systems and internal control procedures, take measures to prevent the misuse of generative AI services, such as the creation of harmful content. The interim measures to regulate generative AI services are just a start. China’s first artificial intelligence management measures are more realistic than the previously released draft four comments. On the day the measure was published in the afternoon of July 13, the share price of the CGBT concept stock in the Hong Kong stock market rose. Perhaps, yeah, some legal experts believe that the current regulatory framework in China cannot effectively address regulatory challenges. Its main content focuses on regulating providers of AI products or services, and it still belongs to the traditional responsibility models of AI governance. Generative AI involves diverse titles in multiple circuits, such as data owners, computing power suppliers, and model designers. It is unfair for regulations to allocate the heaviest responsibility to providers of generative AI. That’s some, the resource of this is from some legal experts who published the article in China, in Chinese, and also, it is also unable to deal with some social issues, and I said it’s just a

Moderator – Yves Poullet:
start. Thank you. Thanks a lot, Feng Chen. It was a very interesting point you are underlining. I retained from your intervention first a certain number of keywords. You say the famous cultural lack, I think that’s very important. You call for what you call a prudent regulation, not to go too fast, and definitely you ask for what you call an inclusive procedure in order to have the participation of all stakeholders. As regards the content of the administrative measure China has taken, it is quite proximate with what EU regulation is proposing. I’ve seen that you are quite, you pay attention to the intellectual property questions, you pay attention to the privacy question. I was very surprised because it’s very important in your regulation, and definitely you propose for solving the risk to have internal risk assessment, risk assessment which must definitely identify the risk, not only individual risk but also societal risk, and definitely which is proposing a certain number of mitigation of this risk. So I am quite comfortable with this approach because this approach is quite proximate of the EU regulation, and now I turn to Stefan, and I give the floor to Stefan because you have at US taken another option, and it is perhaps quite interesting to see to what extent, even if US has taken a co-regulation approach, the same principle, some ethical principle might be developed, and the same procedure might be implemented. Stefan, you have the floor. Yeah, thanks so much, and I hope you can hear me.

Stefan Verhulst:
Thanks Yves for having me, and I wish I was there in person myself in this beautiful room you have there, which looks like a really adequate place for having a conversation like this. And so just to cover the questions you posed, the first question seems to me was really about the moratorium, and I think the discussion from my point of view did open up a broader debate whether a moratorium is even feasible, or whether we should wait. focus on a responsible technology development as opposed to banning or even having government intervene in how innovation is being facilitated. And I think it was an interesting conversation, but at the same time, I think in addition to this tension between a moratorium and a responsible development approach, the underlying tension was also to what extent should the development of AI and in particular case here, the development of large language models and generative AI be open or closed? Because that was the other big discussion from my point of view, which from my point of view was actually more interesting because it really identified the interests behind the moratorium and also the interests that are currently being proposed. Because on the one hand, you have organizations like surprisingly open AI advocating for closed development, quite often with the argument that if you would open up the development of large language models or generative AI, you would have the potential for abuse. But then on the other hand, you have Meta, for instance, which has been advocating for an open approach to the development of generative AI, which from my point of view is actually most in sync with how AI has been developed till recently. Most of the research as it relates to artificial intelligence was always open. And as a result, I would argue, has actually been able to make massive advances because it was open and because you had a whole army of actually developers, researchers working on improving existing models, including GPT models. If we start closing it, then on the one hand, we actually will create new power asymmetries between those that actually have the closed models versus those that have the open models. But from my point of view, it would actually be undermining a core principle of research in the artificial intelligence space, which always has been open. And by making it open, you will also be far better in a position to actually identify the weaknesses, the challenges that might be out there. And I think that is another layer that I think needs to be addressed, which is not just about regulate or not regulate. It’s really about to what extent should you make the technology open so that you actually can really examine what are the vulnerabilities. And of course, the argument here is that if you make it open, others will use it. But that does not, from my point of view, validate a closed approach because a closed approach, from my point of view, will actually solidify the current power asymmetries that you have in the market that actually, from my point of view, are equally challenging and important to be addressed than just a potential abuse of the technology itself. So that’s as it relates to the first question, Yves, which is a more kind of sophisticated, we need a more sophisticated way to have a conversation about a moratorium. It’s really about how do we actually develop technology in a responsible way. I don’t think a ban will automatically make it responsible and actually will solidify certain kinds of power positions. And then the second element is really to what extent can we sustain the kind of culture of openness as it relates to artificial intelligence research that has made tremendous strides till date. Now, of course, you asked what’s the approach from the U.S. as it relates to AI and then specifically as it relates to generative AI. And as always, it’s more complicated than just one approach. And I think there are multiple approaches currently being tested out. And from my point of view, I would just touch on kind of six approaches that we can see within a U.S. context. And indeed, Yves, as you rightly said, many of the approaches might be somewhat or feel like they are different, but many of the principles that underpin those approaches are actually very much in sync with, for instance, the UNESCO recommendations and also very much in sync with emerging other principles, such as the ones that have been advocated within Europe as a result of the AI Act as well. And also, before I delve deeper in, it also suffice and it is perhaps important to state that the U.S. is again a member of UNESCO and that that also provides a new opportunity to actually bring the U.S. within the conversations as it relates to the implementation of the UNESCO recommendations, which, as you know, the U.S. was absent until recently. And I think having the U.S. again being a member provides an opportunity to also perhaps create more approaches that are in sync also at the international level as well. Now, the six approaches, the one approach that already was mentioned by Yves is more kind of a rights-based approach. And indeed, OSTP has tried to convene kind of a multi-stakeholder approach in order to develop this kind of bill of rights, which was really an effort to set out a set of principles, a set of rights that need to be enshrined in a voluntary way. Because indeed, Yves, as you already said, this is not about kind of hard regulation. This is more kind of co-design of some kinds of frameworks that subsequently will need to be implemented in some kind of a self-regulatory, voluntary. kind of way. But the Bill of Rights was interesting because it did specify a set of principles and a set of areas of concern, such as, for instance, the need to really focus on safety and effectiveness of the systems that are being provided, focusing on algorithmic discrimination, focusing on privacy. And of course, as you know, the US does not have a national privacy legislation, but I think the Bill of Rights was important to emphasize the need for perhaps a more national cross-sectoral approach as it relates to privacy in order to deal with also AI, but also issues of notice and explainability, which, again, is not unique to the US, but is coming up everywhere. And then, of course, also the need to think about human alternatives as opposed to automated alternatives in actually making decisions. And so these were kind of the areas that the Bill of Rights addressed and subsequently also provided the framework for additional commitments, because I think that’s the second big element that what has happened within the US is that the White House, through, for instance, the Bill of Rights, but also through other means, have been able to engage all the large tech companies in making commitments for responsible development of AI, which includes commitments to test their systems, to what extent they are aligned with an assessment tool that interestingly was developed in a collective manner during DEF CON 31, which in itself was kind of an interesting exercise, because here where they tried to tap into the collective intelligence of expertise in order to come up with actually a framework that then subsequently was recommended by the White House to be the framework to assess, if you want to view it. Just a remark, perhaps it would be needed to conclude in one or two minutes, because we have a lot of older discussion. I know, I know. So yeah, I can go on the wall here. The other element that I will briefly emphasize some aspects, the other element is, of course, that we also have seen the creation of methodologies to assess risk, similar to what has happened in Europe. I think NIST, or the National Institute of Standards and Technology, developed its risk assessment framework, where it really tries to define what is trustworthiness, and how do we know whether systems are trustworthy, and I think it’s definitely a worthwhile exercise to look into it. And then the other element, which is always important, is not only regulation, but quite often the shadow of regulation, given the fact that we are relying on self-regulation. And so what has happened is that Senator Schumer, who leads the Senate, ultimately has held a set of hearings, and as you know, hearings is actually a very valuable tool in actually regulation, because it does provide for oversight, and it does provide for a discussion. Last thing I will say, Eve, and then I will shut up, is that while all this has happened, and while a lot of this is actually co-regulation, in most cases self-regulation, what we have seen happening is that the states in the US have actually become far more active than the federal agencies in regulating, which refers again, Eve, to my other area of interest in AI governance, which is of course AI localism. And what we have seen is that states and cities have actually been really active in AI governance in the US. There were about 200 bills at the moment being proposed at the state level, and multiple cities have started legislating AI as well. And I think that’s also worth noting at the international level that states and cities are actually in the forefront of coming up with frameworks and legislation.

Moderator – Yves Poullet:
And I’ve got to stop here. Definitely. Thanks, thanks, thanks, Stefan. I think your proposal to complexify the discussion, notably as we gather the question of the open AI, is definitely a very interesting thing. And I think we have to come back during the question and answer time. Another question I think is that you said that you have repeated are the same ethical values than the ethical values asserted by China. And I think we have a sort of common agreement about the fact that ethical values are fixed by the UNESCO in a very clear way, and that we might accept that. So I don’t think there is really a problem of three unethical values. The problem is more how to enforce these ethical values. And you have proposed to pay attention not only to public or self-regulation, but you mentioned a certain number of things like standardization, like definitively, like quality assessment. And I think that’s very, very interesting. And you finish by this marvelous point about AI localism regulation. And I think that’s very powerful. I think we need also the fact that communities, local communities are taking that very seriously and that they are proposing solution which are totally in accordance with their culture and with the habits of these people. Okay, so now we have a question and answer discussion. I know that Fabio, thanks a lot for being the moderator, has already certain questions. Please.

Fabio Senne:
Thank you. So we have two questions and comments online, more or less connected. One of them is from Omar Farouk, a 17 years old boy from Bangladesh. Who sent some very nice contributions. I won’t read all the contribution because we’re using the chat. But just to mention, regarding the question too, the comment from Omar is, convene a global forum on generative AI to discuss the ethical, legal, and social implication of these technologies. Support research on the impact of generative AI on everyone, including children and young. young people and promote digital literacy and critical thinking skills among children and young people so that they can be informed users of generative AI. And also Stephen Voslo building on Omar’s point, Stephen from UNICEF, say that they are also concerned that there is no known, they don’t know yet the impacts of generative AI, positive and negative on children’s and social, emotional and cognitive development. Research is critical, but take time. So how is the best way to navigate the reality that the tools are out in the public and we need to protect and empower children today, but we only fully know the impacts later. So how to deal with the need for research, but at the same time that things are out there.

Moderator – Yves Poullet:
Thanks a lot for this first question, perhaps I ask to the different speakers and not only the speakers who have already taken the floor, but also to Siva and perhaps you Fabio, if they want to answer to these questions. Definitely, I have a look at the audience, I see the micro are there, so perhaps if you have other questions, perhaps it would be interesting to raise now these questions. No, there is nobody. Okay, I come to the two first questions and it’s quite interesting to see that there are questions raised by young people, very interesting and there is a specific need for being educated in the use of this generative AI system. It is quite interesting, I think I had in mind, Stefan has spoken about the fact that you must have responsible people using AI generative system and when you think about responsible people, it is not only the tech companies which are developing this AI system, but also the users. So perhaps it might be quite interesting in that line to answer to the questions. Another answer, function, Stefan, Siva, Fabio, no?

Stefan Verhulst:
Yeah, happy to briefly reflect on that and I fully agree with Omar is that we do need to engage with young people in a far more sophisticated way to really figure out A, what are their preferences, B, what are their solutions, because I think it is not just about listening to young people, they actually might have solutions that are far more informed because of their… being digital natives in many countries as well. And so we just finished actually last week, we had six huge solutions labs in six regions together with UNICEF and with the Lancet Commission focusing on adolescent wellbeing. And one of the questions that we posted them was actually about data and artificial intelligence. And the responses were extremely sophisticated and it shows that young people really have a sense on what is happening and what their preferences are as it relates to AI as well. And so we need a lot more of those conversations, especially in countries like in low and middle income countries where the majority are actually young people. So we need to actually engage the majority in order to really become more legitimate on how to go about AI as well. So I fully embrace that. And I think we actually also need to do a lot more innovation in how we engage with youth, which is why perhaps, anyway, good that Omar joined today, but not many youth are joining sessions like the ones that we have, which is still kind of based upon anyway, how we’ve done conversations for the last 50 years. And I think they have moved on and are having conversations in different platforms where we as, and I talk about myself, kind of the aging population are not used to have those conversations. So we need to really innovate in that way as well.

Moderator – Yves Poullet:
Thanks, Stephan. I think Feng Chen has anything to say, something to say.

Changfeng Chen:
I think generative artificial intelligence is conducive to educating young people and it creates a view of rights. In fact, there’s a theory of rights for children in the media literacy, that young people have the right to use new technologies, to learn and to develop themselves. And adults and the profession. should have the obligation to guide the young people. And yeah, it’s a long process to young people to get this right. But I think the efforts has begun, has start. UNESCO has a Media and Information Literacy Week in this end of the month, in the last week of this month, in Judan. Judan, how do you say, Judan? Yes. Many people is worried about the young people who are in this kind of situation. And I think we should give young people the right. And also for the technology company, they should create some special help for the young people.

Moderator – Yves Poullet:
Thanks, Lotte. I’m quite interested by this new right for children to use technology for their own development. That’s a very interesting point. Yeah? Okay, I think we have a question from remote audience. Doha, you have a question? Please, two minutes no more because we have other things to develop. Doha, you have the floor.

Audience:
Thank you, I hope you can hear me. No, I’m Doha, I’m a program specialist at UNESCO working with Gabriel. I actually wanted to react to the previous questions, if that’s okay, very quickly and briefly. I think the questions are very important and pressing because it’s true, as very rightly pointed out, that even if we would think about a new ethical framework or a new regulation for generative AI in particular, it would take a lot of time. And it would be indeed more wise to utilize the tools that we currently have, like the recommendation and other guidelines on AI to be used. But until we have more concrete takes, so what can be done in practice? I think it’s important to also go back to the essentials of awareness raising. Most people that I know, and especially I think young people, it’s very tempting to use those models, right? Because it shortens a lot our time, our efforts, but not too many are actually aware of the risks that are rightly pointed out by all the panelists. Usually only if people would try to use generative models to ask questions that you already kind of know the answer in advance, you would see the pitfalls, you would see the challenges, the inaccuracy, the references to sources that are made up and things like that. So I think being aware, raising awareness-

Moderator – Yves Poullet:
I’m sorry, I think we have understood what you mean. Thanks a lot for your intervention, but I must restrict you, I’m sorry, okay?

Audience:
No worries.

Moderator – Yves Poullet:
Thanks a lot, thanks a lot. There is a question in the room? Yeah, two questions.

Audience:
Yeah, thank you very much. As a child rights researcher from Germany, I appreciate really that we have questions about- the rights and interests of young persons in this room, but for me, it’s not just a question of the responsible usage of young people, persons of AI. It’s a question of the responsible usage of us all and much more important for me is that it’s not that it’s also a question of a responsible coding and designing and I’m wondering if this could be evaluated in a process of self-regulation or if it it’s not necessary to have a kind of official institution to give a permission if such an AI technology should be come come into force or distributed to us all. So maybe I’m not familiar with the proposed bills and laws but maybe we can hear something about that. Is it the right way to self regulate it by the private sector these responsible technologies or do we have an maybe official institution to give a kind of certificate or permission to roll it out? Thanks.

Moderator – Yves Poullet:
Thanks a lot for your question. It is quite clear that we have already a certain labeling institution and your question might refer to the use of the standardization process as a solution for a responsible AI which must follow the standards. The problem is that there is not a lot as we get the AI generative system of standards and the company must work on that issue very actively. Okay, there is another question I think. Thank you.

Audience:
I’m Tapani Tatvanen from Electronic Frontier Finland and it seems to me that we are already talking about the past. The AI systems are no longer the purview of big tech companies only. When you can run a large language model on your own laptop and the cat or let’s say the llama is already out of the bag in that respect. Basically everybody is not only AI actor in the sense that the UNESCO document but effectively will be developer as well. I predict this will happen in about two years. It will be easy to develop your own models without serious technical expertise. Everybody can be doing that and you cannot regulate everybody. It would be nice if all developers would be responsible as it were, but if everybody’s a developer, I can’t see how you can make everybody responsible. Maybe someone can. I’d be happy about that. I don’t see how that works. So think about the implications of people, all people, criminals, young people, anybody developing AI models for themselves to do whatever they want them to do. Not just using the existing things developed by someone we can regulate. So what can be regulated is the question. You can regulate commercial usage, official usage, the data perhaps that can be used, but the development, no, I don’t think you can. Thank you.

Moderator – Yves Poullet:
Thanks a lot for your statement. I am afraid we have to go to the second part of our session and to give the floor to Fabio and Siva. Siva is present remotely and I have two questions. A recent OECD report on a large language model has clearly demonstrated in the poor performance of these two in many languages other than predominant language in AI system like English or Chinese. Notwithstanding and that notwithstanding the effort of certain states to establish big data in their own language, I mean for instance, the Finland has taken a certain number of measures to drop data repository in Finnish language. More important is the fact that the generative AI system are promoting cultural inference. How do you see solution to that discrimination denunciated by the UNESCO recommendation? A second question is also the fact that the use of most of the generative AI application contrary to the traditional internet service are based on a business model which requires payment for the proposed service. Once again, there is a risk to see a certain number of persons excluded from the benefits of this innovation according to an inclusive scenario. How do you see that risk and which solution are you envisaging to solve it? Siva, you have the floor.

Siva Prasad Rambhatia:
Thank you, thank you for the opportunity. I have benefited from listening to previous panelists presentations and all of the questions. Basically, when you see because UNESCO document really is aware of the kind of issues that we are discussing but at the same time, they are more of a generalistic kind of solutions that offers. And we all know how technology.

Moderator – Yves Poullet:
Siva, is it possible to increase the volume? It seems that there is.

Siva Prasad Rambhatia:
Yes, I’m audible now.

Moderator – Yves Poullet:
Is it okay for you? Please. Go for it.

Siva Prasad Rambhatia:
Is it okay?

Moderator – Yves Poullet:
I think.

Siva Prasad Rambhatia:
Is it okay?

Moderator – Yves Poullet:
It’s okay for me.

Siva Prasad Rambhatia:
Okay, okay. So what is important for us is generally any technology. Technology discriminates between those who are better off and those who are not better off. Those who are in terms of education, in terms of resources and I think will control would not control. control. This is one thing that we must remember. That’s where discrimination begins. And that is the big discrimination lies in that source itself. And that’s, in fact, what artificial intelligence has done is it has created new kinds of inequalities, new kinds of divides. That’s what we call digital divide, or in fact, the digital divides are, actually, they co-exist or they accelerate the existing socio-cultural and other kind of inequalities. And that’s where, when we are talking about the technologies, technologies by themselves are creation of the companies or individuals or anybody else. But then they have their motives, they have their kinds of ideas. And that doesn’t really affect, they may not be very concerned about the other inclusivity and other kinds of problems, because it’s a profit is more important for them. And this, in fact, has been established very widely by scholars. And in fact, what we find is the artificial intelligence has affected the societies in multiple ways. And it has also affected the societal relations. In fact, it has affected the socio-cultural ecosystems, whether it is through, you know, using fake news or other kinds of kinds of things or breaching the privacy or any, you have a number of things that are discussed already. And given this, we must also remember that, because these generative models are also a challenge for ethical issues. In fact, we need to focus. and ethical and well-being issues of artificial intelligence and the intergenerative AI, specifically reflecting on the marginal communities or the indigenous communities or those who are poor and illiterate, especially more from the global south. And in fact, this is where most of these generative models are general in a sense. In fact, as Stephan was talking about, the kind of layers, some of them are larger in terms of their applications, they are more in terms of homogenous in the kind of models. But when we are talking about societies, when they are plural societies, multicultural societies, multilingual societies, the problems are compounded. And even within that, the gender and other issues also become more problematic. So, which means that when we are talking about any kind of guidelines, any kind of restrictions or any kind of controls, one has to be sensitive to all these kinds of layers of hierarchies. And in fact, what we find is the generative models have, in fact, dispensed with to a larger extent, many sections of it. We don’t need the writers, somebody can replace them. And we also have the kind of issues, especially, let me not waste much of the time because of the paucity of the time, I will just touch upon that what the AI as well as generative models are doing is they are creating a kind of a disconnect between the humans and within the societies and also between humans and nature. So, what we need to do is basically, we must focus on more the local or regional specific approaches in generation. We must also try to, you know, use or develop a database from the local knowledges, traditional epistemologies, which are more usable for building better knowledge societies and for also finding solutions to the human problems that we have. This can be really a good contribution to humanity and also the nature in order to build a sustainable and equal society and that is what I would like to briefly touch upon. I can answer, elaborate your question, because the time is very short. Thank you.

Moderator – Yves Poullet:
Thanks, Siva. Thanks. Thanks a lot. I like your expression, when Bill of Rights for every citizens, everybody in the world, but plural society and you come back to the idea developed by Stefan about localism. I think this is very, very important to hear that from you. Fabio, you have the floor. Thank you. Just a question. Is that possible to have 15 minutes more? I’m turning to the technicians. Is that possible to have 15 minutes more now? No. I think we will do this later. Is that okay? Okay. 10 minutes is okay.

Fabio Senne:
Okay. Thank you. I’ll try to be very brief and it’s very easy to speak after such a great contribution that we have. I’ll just highlight a few points from my perspective. I work in Brazil in CETIC.br, which is UNESCO Category 2 center and is also connected to the Brazilian multi-stakeholder internet governance model represented by NIC.br and CGI.br. And that’s producing research and data in the future. field, we need to say that we don’t know yet and we don’t have enough data on this issue, so there’s a need for more investigations in this area. But we do know some things that I think it’s important to understand in the possible risks and the possible influence of the scenario. First of course, the global digital inequality, such as the inequalities among countries and regions and how they access the internet and the digital technologies, how this can impact the quality of the training data that these models have, such as issues like languages, so how such part of the languages are not represented or well represented in these models. But also the inequalities within countries that also affects much the diversity of the data used, so in the case of Brazil we know that there are persistent patterns of inequalities, digital inequalities, connected to race and gender, rural versus urban population, income, level of education, age, and so on. So from the perspective of the diversity and inclusiveness of the process, I think digital inequality is something very important. But also from the perspective of the use of these tools, of this type of generative AI tools. So these also can be affected by or correlated with other aspects such as poverty and other vulnerabilities, so we know from other technologies and disruptive technologies that early adopters tend to benefit more when a new application is available, and the impacts tend to be more disruptive in the early phases of dissemination of the tool when a few can access and benefit from it. So from a perspective of fairness and non-discrimination, I think this is also important. And finally, I think also when we talk about digital inequalities, we are not talking about just access and use, but also about skills, what are the differences between the abilities have in terms of using this, so we know from the data we have in Brazil, we know that, for instance, when we research children use of the internet and their skills, we know that although operational and social skills are very widespread among this population, informational skills, the skills that are related to the critical understanding of content, for instance, is underdeveloped among the population that we interviewed in the case of Brazil. For instance, 43% of children 11 to 17 years old in the country agree that the first result from a survey online is the best result, 51% agree that every person find the same content when searching online, and 42% are unsure about their ability to check online information. So we are talking about, in this case, about children and the need for raising awareness in literacy and AI literacy throughout the educational systems is also an issue. So just to finish, I would like to call the attention for, of course, the need for data production and for research and to understand better this process, but from the data we have, we already know that we need to face digital inequality as a matter of having an AI that is more inclusive and human centered. So this is my perspective for

Moderator – Yves Poullet:
now, and thank you. Thanks a lot to Fabio for this very short but definitely very interesting remarks. I think you have given very concrete indicators about what happens and the inequalities we are facing with this new technology. So we might go now to the question and answer time. I don’t know if there are questions, and after that we will have a tour of the table. among the person, the panelists, in order to have from them, in one minute, a recommendation to address to the IGF about generative AI systems. So please, as we have the question and answer online, there is no questions. Perhaps Mr. Barbosa, no? No? Okay. So, I turn my hat, no? Okay, so we might go directly to the recommendation, and perhaps I will start with Siva. You have finished with a very strong recommendation, so perhaps you might repeat it, and so Noemi might write what you had exactly in mind. Siva, you have the floor, for one minute.

Siva Prasad Rambhatia:
Yeah, yes. My recommendation would be that when we are designing the AI generative models, we should concentrate more on the local and regional kind of issues, so that we can think in terms of multicultural aspects, and also inclusivity. Only then they will be able to participate, otherwise we will be excluding all sections of them, which are majority, they don’t form minority. Thank you.

Moderator – Yves Poullet:
Thanks a lot for the recommendation. We are not presently in that sort of situation, because it is quite clear that if you want to create big data, you need a lot of data, you need definitely a very complex algorithmic system. You know that most of the large language model are using more than one billion of parameters, so how to develop all that, that’s very, very difficult.

Siva Prasad Rambhatia:
Can I add to it?

Moderator – Yves Poullet:
Yeah.

Siva Prasad Rambhatia:
where I was suggesting that the local knowledge systems need to be documented, so that that can help in building this kind of models. Thank you.

Moderator – Yves Poullet:
Okay, thanks. Thanks, Losiva, for this precision. Function, have you a recommendation?

Changfeng Chen:
Yes, the discussion, the question were very interesting and inspired me to bring up a relative thinking, professionalism. I think a kind of a professionalism in artificial intelligence should be promoted. Professionalism is a set of standards and behaviors that individuals and organizations are expected to adhere to in the workplace. It involves demonstrating certain qualities and characteristics that contribute to the positive and effective work environment. Just as the justice to law and the fact to journalism, key aspects of professionalism include reliability, high standards, ethical behavior, respect, responsibility, teamwork, and so on. So for artificial intelligence, human needed to have a real professional conscience on the new technology, rather than regionalized values and regulations. Of course, we still needed to respect multicultural values, but at the same time, in the general technical field, we needed to have a general thinking. So I think AI journalism can, AI professionalism can have the effect of the regulation.

Moderator – Yves Poullet:
Thanks, Frank. Mr. Beckley, have you certain ideas regarding recommendation?

Dawit Bekele:
Thank you. I agree with most of the things that have been said and in particular on the importance of having local responses to the question. I believe that generative AI shouldn’t be imposed on any society. Societies have to choose how they use it. But I see some challenges, particularly resources. Some countries don’t have the resources to deal with these kinds of problems. And also, you know, the knowledge. I think it’s important for organizations such as UNESCO to make sure that everyone is empowered. Everyone understands the issues and has the possibility, you know, to address the issues at the local level. And also, I think the big companies also have the responsibility to support, even financially, poorer countries so that they decide what they take from this important revolution. Thank you.

Moderator – Yves Poullet:
Thanks a lot, David. And Stefan, perhaps?

Stefan Verhulst:
Yeah, sure. So very shortly, I think we need to pay more attention to the fundamental principle of garbage in, garbage out, as it relates to generative AI, which means that we actually have to focus on not just the model, but really on thinking about how do we actually create quality data and be more focused on the data side and then being focused on unlocking quality data, which means that the whole agenda of open data, open science, and quality statistics has actually got more, has become more important than ever. Because if we want to have qualitative generative AI, we actually need to have the infrastructure.

Moderator – Yves Poullet:
Thanks. Fabio, you are the last one.

Fabio Senne:
Thank you. Just to highlight also the need for monitoring and evaluation, I think we have to foster both international frameworks. indicators from UNESCO, there is the OECD Observatory on AI, I think those tools can be very useful for nationally and internationally, create ways of fostering research, monitoring and understanding the impacts of those tools that

Moderator – Yves Poullet:
are already emerging. Thanks for you, I think it was a marvelous transition to you, Marielsa. Marielsa, thanks a lot for joining us. I know that it is very, very early in the morning and definitely thanks a lot for being with us. Marielsa, you are the director of the IFAP program, so perhaps a few words. You have heard the expectation of a certain number of persons from UNESCO, so perhaps you have the floor.

Marielza Oliveira:
Thank you very much, Yves, and hello everyone. I’m really pleased that I can join you, even if it’s only part of this very important Internet Governance Forum session on generative AI. Unfortunately, I had a previous commitment, but in my capacity as the Secretary of the UNESCO Information for All program, let me first warmly congratulate Yves and the IFAP Working Group on Information Ethics, which is the convener of this fascinating discussion on generative AI. This is a new technology which holds profound implications for our societies. It’s crucial that we examine the impacts that it has through the lens of both ethics and human rights. IFAP is an intergovernmental program that supports member states in fostering inclusive knowledge societies, and our mission is fostering universal access to information and knowledge for sustainable development. Information ethics is, of course, among our top priorities, and IFAP has recently endorsed a new strategic plan for the period for 2023-2029 that emphasizes the implications of digital technologies, including AI to our right to access to information. And one of the areas of work that we have is to build capacities for and convene reflections on ethical, legal, and human rights issues that arise out of frontier technologies. And this session, this marvelous session, is an example of the excellent contributions being made by the IFAP working group dedicated to this topic. And the application of frontier digital technologies that go from artificial intelligence, including generative AI, blockchain, internet of things, artificial reality, and new technology are profound over information ecosystems. And we need to really grapple with these implications. And so what IFAP does is support and encourage a series of actions. For example, we work on promoting research into these implications to the inclusive, equitable, and knowledge societies, raising awareness of the sustainable development opportunities that these technologies bring, but also, you know, of the risks and the mechanisms to address these risks, including the impact, for example, on privacy, on the environment, and so on and so forth. Following the endorsement of UNESCO’s 41st General Conference on the Recommendation of the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence, which is the first global instrument on artificial intelligence, IFAP promotes the implementation of the recommendation and supports regional and international cooperation, research, exchange of good practices, and development of understanding and capabilities to respond to these ethical impacts over information ecosystems. IFAP also promotes applying evidence-based frameworks and a multi-stakeholder approach towards designing and governing artificial intelligence, and we certainly use the principles of the internet universality realm that Fabio just mentioned, which says that digital systems must be human rights-based, open, accessible, and multi-stakeholder governed. IFAP also serves as a platform for member states, academia, civil society, private sector, to share experiences and best practices that overcome digital divides and inequalities, including these different capacities to work with technologies such as generative AI. We assist institutions in ensuring that AI technologies are accessible and beneficial to everyone, including marginalized communities and groups such as women, the elderly, persons with disabilities, and so on. And we participate in global dialogues and forums across the globe that trigger discussions among all stakeholders to share the challenges, best practices, and the lessons learned on this technology. And this is why I’m calling upon all stakeholders that are here today to amplify the call for human-centric approaches to AI. Not only it’s a common collective effort that we need to shape a digital future that upholds shared values and build sustainability and equality across all knowledge societies. And for that, I want to congratulate again, the working group on information ethics and particularly Yves, which has been taking this critical conversation forward to a series of major global and regional workshops on this topic. And I hope that you can all join the next events and disseminate the outcomes of this discussion. So thank you very much for your insights and commitment to shaping a really more informed and ethical digital future that leaves no one behind. Back to you, Yves. Thank you.

Moderator – Yves Poullet:
Thanks Marietje for this marvelous concluding remarks. That’s a pity we have to finish this workshop so early. I think we need more than one day for discussing all the topics we have mentioned today. But definitely, it would be a common collective effort to address all these issue and to find solution to all these issues. So I would like first to thank the technicians for their nice support. I think that’s very important. And thanks a lot for their comprehensiveness as we are the fact that we have 10 minutes more. I would like to thank the audience, the remote audience and definitely the person who have the courage to stay here. And definitely, I would like to thank very, very strongly the panelists for their nice input to the discussion. I see Marietje that you raised your hand, no. Okay. Oh no, that was an applause. Okay, so I think we need applause, definitively. Applause. Thank you.