Uncategorized

Summary

This panel discussion focused on collaborative approaches to address online harms, bringing together perspectives from law enforcement, government, civil society, and technology sectors. Participants emphasized the importance of a multi-stakeholder approach in tackling online threats, particularly those affecting vulnerable groups like children and women. The FBI representative highlighted international cooperation efforts in combating child exploitation, while the Australian ambassador discussed legislative measures to hold social media platforms accountable for user safety.

Parliamentarians from Saudi Arabia and Bahrain stressed the need for balanced policies that protect citizens while fostering innovation. They emphasized the importance of education and awareness in navigating the digital landscape. The Oversight Board representative explained their role in holding Meta accountable for content moderation decisions, emphasizing the importance of diverse perspectives in addressing global issues.

Key challenges discussed included defining online harm across different cultural contexts, balancing freedom of expression with safety concerns, and addressing the digital divide, particularly for women and developing nations. Participants also touched on the potential impacts of artificial intelligence on employment and the need for ongoing adaptation of laws to keep pace with technological advancements.

The discussion underscored the complexity of internet governance, highlighting the need for collaboration between governments, tech companies, civil society, and international bodies. Participants agreed on the importance of preserving the open nature of the internet while implementing measures to protect users and promote digital literacy. The session concluded with a call for digital solidarity to ensure balanced global development and respect for human rights in the online space.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– The importance of a multi-stakeholder, collaborative approach to addressing online harms

– The need for precise legislation and oversight to regulate online spaces while protecting rights

– Challenges in defining and addressing online harms across different cultural contexts

– The role of education and digital literacy in creating a safer online environment

– Balancing innovation and economic development with online safety and security

Overall purpose:

The purpose of this discussion was to explore collaborative approaches to addressing online harms from various stakeholder perspectives, including government, parliament, law enforcement, civil society, and the private sector. Participants aimed to share insights on effective strategies and challenges in regulating the online space.

Tone:

The overall tone was constructive and solution-oriented. Speakers approached the topic with a sense of urgency regarding the need to address online harms, while also acknowledging the complexity of the issues. There was a spirit of collaboration, with participants emphasizing the importance of working together across sectors and borders. The tone became more passionate when discussing specific issues like protecting children online or addressing the digital divide, but remained respectful throughout.

Speakers

– David Alamos – Chief of the Parliamentary Engagement Office of the United Nations Office of Counterterrorism

– Jordan Hadfield – Legal Attache of the Federal Bureau of Investigation

– Rajnesh Singh – Chief Executive Officer of the APNIC Foundation

– Brendan Dowling – Australian Ambassador for Cyber Affairs and Critical Technology

– Nighat Dad – Member of the Oversight Board

– Auhoud Al-Shehail – Member of Parliament from the Saudi Shura Council

– Jehad Abdulla Al Fadhel – Second Deputy Speaker of the Shura Council of Bahrain

Additional speakers:

– Soraya – Audience member

– Tziakoub Yusuf – Member of the Council of Representatives of the Kingdom of Bahrain

– Unnamed speaker – President of the Forum of Parliamentary Women of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Mediterranean

– Unnamed speaker – Arab man in the audience

– Agustina – Works at the Chamber of Deputies in Argentina

– Abdulrahman Harbi – Saudi scholar

– Baraa Julien – Member of the National Assembly of Cameroon

– Shweba Falabe Salisu – Senator from Nigeria, Chairman Senate Committee on ICT and Cyber Security

– Abdulhaq Ibrahimi – Member of the Algerian National Council

– Unnamed speaker – President of the Parliament of Guinea

Expanded Summary of Panel Discussion on Collaborative Approaches to Address Online Harms

Introduction:

This panel discussion brought together representatives from law enforcement, government, civil society, and the technology sector to explore collaborative approaches to addressing online harms. The conversation highlighted the complex nature of internet governance and the need for multi-stakeholder engagement in developing effective strategies to combat online threats whilst preserving the benefits of digital technologies.

Key Themes and Discussion Points:

1. Multi-stakeholder Approaches to Addressing Online Harms

The panel unanimously agreed on the importance of collaboration between various stakeholders in addressing online harms. Jordan Hadfield from the FBI emphasised the value of international cooperation, citing task forces like the Violent Crimes Against Children International Task Force and Interpol specialist groups focused on combating child exploitation. He also highlighted the FBI’s “Threat to Life” categorization for prioritizing online threats. Brendan Dowling, the Australian Ambassador for Cyber Affairs, highlighted how government legislation in Australia has been driven by community concerns, leading to greater accountability for social media platforms. He noted that the failure of technology companies to adequately protect users has necessitated government intervention.

Rajnesh Singh of the APNIC Foundation stressed the need for an open, interoperable internet infrastructure, cautioning against over-regulation that could impact core internet functionality. Nighat Dad, representing the Oversight Board, underscored the importance of diverse oversight bodies for tech platforms to ensure culturally sensitive content moderation. She detailed the Oversight Board’s role and composition, emphasizing its independence and diverse membership.

Parliamentarians Auhoud Al-Shehail from Saudi Arabia and Jehad Abdulla Al Fadhel from Bahrain emphasised the need for balanced legislation that protects citizens while fostering innovation. They advocated for partnerships between parliament, government, the private sector, and civil society to develop comprehensive approaches to online safety.

2. Protecting Vulnerable Groups Online

A significant focus of the discussion was on protecting vulnerable groups, particularly children and women, from online harms. Jordan Hadfield detailed the FBI’s efforts in addressing child exploitation through international task forces. Brendan Dowling shared Australia’s initiative to ban social media accounts for under 16-year-olds, with a 12-month development period for implementation.

Rajnesh Singh highlighted programmes run by the APNIC Foundation to empower women in tech in Southeast Asia, addressing the gender gap in internet access and use. He also emphasized the importance of creating safe spaces for women and gender-diverse people online. Nighat Dad emphasised the importance of considering cultural context in content moderation, citing the Oversight Board’s role in advising META on context-specific issues, such as the use of the Arabic word “Shaheed” in different contexts.

Auhoud Al-Shehail stressed the importance of education and awareness initiatives to equip users with the skills to navigate the digital landscape safely. Jehad Abdulla Al Fadhel called for intensifying penalties for harmful uses of the dark web to protect vulnerable groups. An audience member highlighted Saudi Arabia’s initiatives on child protection and women empowerment in the digital space.

3. Balancing Innovation, Rights, and Regulation

The discussion highlighted the challenge of balancing technological innovation with user protection and human rights. Jordan Hadfield noted the need for evolving laws to address new online threats, while Brendan Dowling advocated for “safety by design” principles in new technologies to preemptively address potential harms.

Rajnesh Singh emphasised the importance of supporting local digital ecosystems, encouraging citizens to be creators, not just consumers of digital content. Nighat Dad stressed the use of human rights frameworks in oversight mechanisms for tech companies.

Auhoud Al-Shehail highlighted the importance of ongoing evaluation of policies to keep pace with rapidly evolving technology. Jehad Abdulla Al Fadhel proposed an international parliamentary network for internet governance to facilitate global cooperation on these issues.

4. Digital Divide and Access

Several audience members, particularly African representatives, raised concerns about the digital divide between developed and developing countries. The President of the Parliament of Guinea emphasized the need for digital solidarity to ensure balanced global development and respect for human rights in the online space. The gender gap in internet access was highlighted as a particular concern, with speakers emphasising the need for targeted programmes to increase women’s participation in the digital economy.

Rajnesh Singh’s comments on supporting local digital ecosystems resonated with these concerns, emphasising the importance of nurturing local innovation and creation, rather than just consumption of foreign digital products.

5. Emerging Challenges and Unresolved Issues

The discussion identified several unresolved issues and emerging challenges in addressing online harms:

– Defining online harm across different cultural contexts, as highlighted by Auhoud Al-Shehail

– Balancing freedom of expression with protection from online harms

– Addressing potential job losses due to AI and automation, raised by Baraa Julien from Cameroon

– Ensuring consistent application of content moderation across different cultural contexts

– Developing a unified approach to internet governance across different countries

– Closing the digital divide between developed and developing countries

Thought-Provoking Comments and Future Directions:

Several comments sparked deeper reflection on the complexities of addressing online harms:

Auhoud Al-Shehail’s observation about the evolving nature of online harms highlighted the need for flexible and adaptable regulatory approaches. Brendan Dowling’s emphasis on “safety by design” principles underscored the importance of proactive measures in technology development.

Rajnesh Singh’s distinction between internet infrastructure and applications/services prompted a more nuanced discussion about the targets of regulation and potential unintended consequences of poorly targeted policies.

Nighat Dad’s example of the Oversight Board’s deliberations on culturally sensitive terms illustrated the challenges of content moderation across different cultural contexts and the importance of diverse perspectives in decision-making processes.

The presence of high-level participants, including the Speaker of the Parliament of Kenya, underscored the global importance of addressing online harms and the need for international cooperation.

Conclusion:

The panel discussion underscored the complexity of addressing online harms and the need for collaborative, multi-stakeholder approaches. While there was broad consensus on the importance of protecting vulnerable groups and balancing innovation with regulation, significant challenges remain in implementing effective strategies across diverse cultural and legal contexts. The conversation highlighted the ongoing need for dialogue, research, and adaptive policymaking to ensure a safe, inclusive, and innovative digital future for all, with a particular emphasis on bridging the digital divide and fostering digital solidarity on a global scale.

David Alamos: Good morning, excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, and distinguished participants. We resume with the next session of today. It’s a pleasure for me to moderate this panel of experts. As you may know, the next session is going to be on collaborative approaches to address online harms. And just to let you know, my name is David Alamos, I’m the chief of the Parliamentary Engagement Office of the United Nations Office of Counterterrorism, that we settled three years ago to work exclusively and basically with the parliamentarians and with member of parliaments, national parliaments, and parliamentary assemblies, and it’s a double honour for me to be today here moderating this session. So we have been talking during these previous sessions yesterday and today about the importance of a multi-stakeholder approach in all these relevant matters. So I really think that we have now a session which absolutely exemplifies this kind of approach. We have representatives from the national parliaments, we have also from the executive branch, also from the civil society. So I think these different angles and perspectives are absolutely needed to be discussed at the same time to come to a common solution. So I will, in the sake of time, I will go directly to the questions to our distinguished speakers and I would be grateful if when you are taking the floor, please, if you can just briefly introduce yourself so that we are all familiar with your bio. So the first question I would like to address to Mr. Jordan Hadfield, the Legal Attaché of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and to Mr. Brendan Dowling, Australian Ambassador for Cyber Affairs and Critical Technology of Australia. So the first question is, please, this session focuses on collaborative approaches to address online harms. Mr. Hatfield and Mr. Dowling, what are the benefits of a multi-stakeholder approach to fight risks and harms in the online space? Please, if you could also provide concrete examples, please, you have the floor.

Jordan Hadfield: All right. Good morning. Thank you so much for the introduction. Thank you also to the IGF and for the Kingdom for hosting such a wonderful event here. My name is Jordan Hadfield. I am the Legal Attaché for the Federal Bureau of Investigation Department of Justice here at U.S. Embassy in Riyadh, and talking about multi-stakeholder approaches and collaborations, the Federal Bureau of Investigation handles both criminal and national security matters. So when we discuss national security matters in open forums, things become very complex and difficult to talk about things. So I’m going to shift to more of the criminal element right now, and specifically looking at child exploitation matters. I think that’s probably one of the easiest things for us to discuss in an open forum. But looking back just contextually, the Federal Bureau of Investigation categorizes a lot of the threats that we’re dealing with in the space as TTLs, or Threat to Lifes. Those Threat to Lifes might be an imminent threat, an imminent attack, violent extremism. It might also be a specific threat against a child or an adult due to a domestic dispute, also due to online harms. And so specifically looking at that criminal element and the crimes against children or child exploitation realm, looking at producers of child sexual abuse material across the board and discussing what does that sort of stakeholder approach look like. The FBI works in two kind of novel ways that are unique, but has plenty of international partners that we work alongside to kind of accomplish this goal. The first thing that we have is a Violent Crimes Against Children International Task Force. This task force is law enforcement led, but is open to law enforcement. It’s open to industry. It’s also open to prosecutors across the globe. So there’s over 70 nations that have been represented on this task force. The focus is that every single year, there’ll be a week-long operational meeting somewhere in the world, different place every single year to be able to discuss new operational concerns, new challenges in the realms of end-to-end encryption, also looking at online harm. The long-term goal in this is to develop better relationships amongst law enforcement prosecutors so that we can discuss sort of the latest and greatest complexities with the work that we do. Part of this development or part of this task force is that on an annual basis, there’s a month-long training for new additions to this task force. So you have prosecutors, you have law enforcement officers going through four weeks in the United States, seeing the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, getting time at NCMEC, getting time with other elements inside the United States, some of our regional teams as well, to better understand the challenges that we all face. face. It could be a small local regional sheriff’s department in a small rural community in the United States, or it could be something happening in the kingdom here, it could be something happening into a major city anywhere around the world, and the challenge could be the same because we cannot get access to something that law enforcement or prosecutors or justice departments have legal authority to access. So it’s an ongoing complexity. The second thing, and I’ll end on this, is that we participate in Interpol specialist groups for crimes against children in France every single year. This is a huge opportunity, week-long event to develop relationships with other law enforcement partners, other members of the industry, tech industry, electronic service providers. It’s tip-of-the-spear conversations and an open dialogue, but also an opportunity to have those sort of more sensitive conversations behind closed doors. So success in this realm for us right now in the way that we try to approach it has to look collaborative, and we try to do as much as we can to open our doors so that other folks and other nations can learn from our challenges as well. Thank you.

David Alamos: Thank you very much, Mr. Hadfield, for the vision on the experience of the FBI, and how are you proceeding with this multi-stakeholder approach also working together with others. So please now, Ambassador, Mr. Dowling, please, you have the floor.

Brendan Dowling: Thank you. I’m the Australian Ambassador for Cyber Affairs and Critical Technology, and it’s wonderful to be here with all of you today. Australia has been quite active in addressing online harms. We’ve been very active in passing legislation that drives greater accountability for social media platforms, for technology platforms to take more serious action to address online harms. That has all been driven by multi-stakeholder approach. We were the first country in the world to establish an e-safety commission. The driver for that was community concern about cyberbullying, about the harms that our children were being exposed to through issues around online grooming, around abuse of children online. So it was driven not by government imposing a top-down solution, but by a sense of concern by our community, by civil society, by children’s rights groups, by other advocates to say, we need government, we need our parliament to take more action to address the spread of online harm. So we’ve always come at this from a multi-stakeholder approach. We’ve always applied legislation to address online harms through a parliamentary review process subject to judicial review. We’ve always sought to design legislation in consultation with industry, but our parliament has been driven to act by that sense of concern from our community that we’ve seen this enormous proliferation of child abuse material online. We’ve seen terrorist groups seeking to radicalise our young people online. We’ve seen cyberbullying spread rife through our schools. So there has been a sense that parliaments and governments need to act to drive more accountability because, let’s face it, technology platforms will not do that by themselves. They’ve had 20 years of expectations of addressing online harms, which they have failed to take seriously. They’ve prioritised commercial interests over community safety and wellbeing. So there has been a strong push by the Australian people to say this is an area where governments need to act, where parliaments need to act. We need to do it in a sensible, considered way. We need to engage. a range of stakeholders. We need to engage industry, but it is an area where governments do need to act.

David Alamos: Thank you very much, Excellency. It’s very important, as you said, the collaboration between Parliament and Government. We need to be accountable and to respond together to these kind of threats that we are exposed to. Let me now move forward and pose a question to Mr. Singh, Chief Executive Officer of the APNIC Foundation. So, Mr. Singh, the APNIC Foundation advocates for a global, open, stable and secure internet. How can members of Parliament contribute to this vision? What collaborative approach would you recommend for Parliamentarians to take? Please.

Rajnesh Singh: Thank you. Thank you for the opportunity to the organizers, and it’s great to be here in Saudi Arabia as well. So, my organization, we invest in internet and digital development across 56 economies in the Asia-Pacific region. We come from technical roots, so that gives us a bit of credibility when it comes to the technical nature of the internet on what we talk about and why we talk about what we do. In terms of the question itself, I think we can all appreciate that the internet over the last 30, maybe close to 40 years now, has completely transformed humankind. You’ve seen the positive benefits of the internet across the world. One of the reasons that’s been the case is because the internet is open and it’s interoperable, which means you can build anything you want, and you can connect to the internet, and you can sell your services or your application or whatever it may be to anyone else in the world, theoretically, at least anyway. And so, And what that of course allows is creativity, it allows innovation, it allows all these technology companies and non-technology companies to do what they’re able to do with the internet. When I see a lot of people in this room right now busy on their phones, you are able to do that because the internet is there allowing you to do what you’re doing on your phone. That brings me to one of the concerns that I have when it comes to how parliamentarians and policy makers look at what the internet is. I think you also have to be very clear on what the internet is not. And what I mean by that is that the internet itself is the core infrastructure that makes all this happen. Applications and services, the things that people use on the internet, are a different thing. And I think too often we conflate the two. When regulation or policies are put in place, the implications of what that will do to the core internet infrastructure are not taken into account. So if there’s one message I would give to parliamentarians and policy makers, consider the implications of what you’re trying to regulate or not trying to regulate. Things like app, for example, AI is a big thing these days, right? But fundamentally AI is an application that works over the internet. There’s nothing more than that. If the internet infrastructure that exists around the world, the core global internet infrastructure doesn’t exist, none of that’s going to work. So when you do consider how you look at legislation or how you develop legislation, I think it’s very important to consider what exactly are you trying to legislate. Is it the apps or the platforms or what runs over the internet? Or are you also potentially impacting the internet itself? So I’ll stop there. Thank you.

David Alamos: Thank you very much, Mr. Singh, for your intervention and for highlighting the importance of being very precise with the development of the legislation that has to be furthermore implemented by everybody. So let me now move on. I would like to give now the floor. to Mrs. Nighat that she’s the member of the Oversight Board. And the question is, please, the Oversight Board plays an important role on a metasocial media platform. How do you collaborate with other stakeholder groups to guarantee a safer online space? Please, Johanna.

Nighat Dad: Oh, thank you so much. For folks, if you don’t know about the Oversight Board, it’s a very unique body. The first of its own experience that basically META tried doing it. And I’m very proud to say that we actually have become an institution over the last four years. We were established in 2020. And the idea was to have an independent body which can independently hold META accountable on their content moderation decisions. So users can actually appeal to us against the META’s decision on leaving up content or removing content. And what we do as a board is basically select the most relevant cases from around the world. Our main focus is basically centralizing human rights framework while we decide on cases and also on users’ right, like protecting users’ right by actively engaging with stakeholders through appeals and public comments. And so far we have received 10,000 comments on the cases that we have selected. We receive these comments, we process them, and then we deliberate on our cases. One of the examples just recently is the case that we decided is over the phrase on river to the sea, which was basically users around the world had this complaint that it was over-enforced on META platforms. And we looked into it and we received 2,000 comments just for that one particular case. I think the comment process and engaging with stakeholders around the world basically give us an opportunity to engage with diverse groups of people, but also with stakeholders in civil society that if they cannot reach out to the tech platforms themselves directly, they can reach out to this third body, which is independent and which has an authority of binding decisions over META. But I would also say that one of the very important features of our work is not only independence, but transparency as well. What we do, we actually share with the world. They can also hold us accountable that if you are the independent oversight body, how you are holding META accountable. And we do this through our reports, the performance on our decisions, and the implementation of how META is actually implementing on our decisions. I would also say that the body is also interesting in a way that the power concentration around tackling online harms is not only with the platform and it’s not only with the government. It should not be. There should be other stakeholders also who have a say and who can engage with the diverse groups like civil society. Thank you.

David Alamos: Thank you very much, Madhani, for your intervention. How important it is really to have all the visions from law enforcement, from civil society, government, an independent body that is able to monitor and to oversight the platforms and the work. So with that, we have received many comments on the importance of legislation, how important it is that the development of legislation should be accurate and should be precise, specifically, and count on the comments of those that are basically… facing some of the challenges in its implementation. It is for me an honor now to move ahead and to give the floor to members of the Parliament, to Her Excellency Uhud al-Sahayl, Member of Parliament from the Saudi Shura Council, and also to Her Excellency Madam Jihad Abdullah Al-Fahed, Second Deputy Speaker of the Shura Council of Bahrain. Excellencies, as members of Parliament, I would like to ask you, what are you confronted with when wanting to address online harms in the digital space, like, for example, during the legislative procedures, and also what support would you like to see from the private sector, the technical community, civil society, and the government on the work that you advance? Please, Excellency Madam Al-Sahayl, you have the floor.

Auhoud Al-Shehail: Good afternoon. It is an honor and privilege to be participating today in this session. It is such an important session, and I would like to welcome you to Riyadh. The rapid evolution of technology brings with it a lot of benefits, but also brings different forms of what does harm mean. And the starting point, I do believe, as a Parliament member is, what does online harm mean? Because we keep talking about it, but we really don’t know, because as technology develops, those forms and those harms keep developing. So our understanding of harm keeps changing from criminal to ethical, from social, different backgrounds, they are affected. So going back to 2007, when the Shura Council first proposed a law that was concentrated on online crimes, the Anti-Cybercrime Law, it was approved, but at that time it focused more on illegal act. And the whole purpose of it was providing and creating a secure, protected society. As time developed and technology and more interaction happened, more harm started to come on the surface, local and international. So, this brings us to that different stakeholders have different perspectives and understanding of what constitutes harm. It is such a simple question, but yet the consequences of it are very complex. So, if we can share a common understanding, it will help us in creating goals that we can actually achieve that are practical and effective. Yesterday, they were talking about the goals that we didn’t even reach 20% of the goals that we hope to reach. The second challenge we are always faced with is balancing rights. There is a debate about it, but as a member of the parliament, I do believe that we have a role to ensure that all executive institutions do understand and are aligned in making the digital space a safer space that does respect human digital rights. So, when looking at privacy, sometimes it does collide with security. And balancing those rights, sometimes the consequences do interfere with each other. And looking at the digital world, it’s related in all aspects of our life. The third challenge that we are faced with is innovation. Innovation not from a technological point of view, but innovation in communicating with different stakeholders, also finding innovative solutions. And also education. Education has proved in many fields and in all fields of our life that it is a successful tool. So, doing research and also having educational campaigns that does equip our civilians and citizens with tools that they can have and navigate this digital world to make it a safer place. I do believe that having a better communication, that’s why I said in the beginning, I am so honored to be participating in this session. Because it is a very important topic that affects all sectors. of society, from politicians to citizens to children, different harm, kinds of harm also, from legal to psychological. So thank you for the time. I think I’m like on time. I give the mic back to you.

David Alamos: Thank you very much, Excellency. Of course, you are on time. And thank you very much for the intervention. Thank you very much for also addressing the issue of the importance of education. I think it’s a critical issue on this topic, in many topics, but especially in this topic, which is really like, without education, we will be absolutely exposed to all the threats online. So let me now move ahead and give the floor to Her Excellency, Madam Jahat Abdullah. After her, please, you have the floor.

Jehad Abdulla Al Fadhel: Shukran jazeelan, I’ll speak in Arabic, if you don’t mind. Thank you so much for this invitation, this kind invitation to attend this forum, which is very important in the capital of the Arabs, Riyadh. Thank you so much for this invitation. My name is Jahad Al-Fadl, I’m the second deputy for the Council of Shura in the Kingdom of Shura, the head of the parliamentarian leaders in Africa, Africa and the Arab world, and deputy of the parliamentarian net or internet in Africa and the Arab world. So for my, for the challenges that we are trying to face to deal with harm through the legislative work, I’d like to say that there are level, national level, the main place for launching any kind of initiative, legal or whatever it is, or parliamentarian initiative. to ask a parliamentarian is try to diagnose, in fact, the harm so that to stop any kind of challenges or difficulties, try to mitigate it. So the most important thing that we are facing as members in the legislatory body that these legislations that has to do with any activity on the internet will be going hand-in-hand with the other developments that are taking place at the same time. So this makes us obligated to have a delegation, a legislative delegation, where you want to delegate the people who are executing to actually issue ministerial decisions, so that there will be flexibility in issuing these decisions. If you want to compare it also with any kind of amendment in the laws, this takes a full properly cycle that could take a long time maybe. So also besides that, we notice that in the last and the previous recent days, that there was a lot of fraudulent action on the internet. So that’s why we try to improve the security for the individuals and different entities in the country. In the Kingdom of Bahrain, the legislative authority has issued a lot of legislations that organizes different things or actions that take place like, you know, electronic signature. So the Shura Council in Bahrain also has submitted a proposal about organizing the AI. now they are revising it in different councils in the parliament according to the legal ways. It considers the Bahraini Shura is the first parliament in the Arabic world and one of the first in the world that agrees to this type of initiatives, legislative initiatives that has to do with AIR. For the second part of it, that’s about usage, I think the biggest support from the government and other entities is to commit an implementing of laws, especially these laws that has to do with different fragile groups like children, so that to protect them against fraudulent acts and also besides that, for the support that we are expecting from technological companies is that they will do their part in fighting actually threats that is coming from country to country, this movement from country to country and also to have more cooperation in implementing the laws in their platforms and respecting different security standards. It’s very important for these guys to give trainings to parliamentarians so that they will understand things much better, especially technical issues and give them also different analytics so that this will help the parliament in taking decisions, the right decisions. at the right time. So we expect from the civil society and the media and the different social media platforms is that they need to take their roles in having a big role in educating people and teaching them. Thank you very much.

David Alamos: of the Kingdom of Bahrain but you also have another very important role which is as a member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Mediterranean as Parliamentary Assembly and the work that the Parliamentary Assemblies are advancing this topic is very important especially Parliamentary Assembly of the Mediterranean has gone through a very interesting and very productive actions with regard to this specific topic including artificial intelligence of course and I would like to ask you Excellency how does the Parliamentary Assembly of the Mediterranean contribute to and take action in collaborative efforts to tackle online harms? Please.

Jehad Abdulla Al Fadhel: Of course, the Mediterranean White Parliament, through cooperation with various international organizations, governments and parliaments, is working to create a unified framework that addresses issues related to artificial intelligence, information technology and communications, while ensuring the preservation of tools to achieve social, economic and innovative development. The Mediterranean White Parliament, with the support of its Center for International Studies, is also working closely with member parliaments and international organizations, as a partner in drafting marine policies and strategies to prevent and mitigate internet damage. The Mediterranean White Parliament has also established a permanent international parliamentary center for artificial intelligence, information technology and communications. This center publishes daily and weekly articles to provide its members and partner organizations with innovative directions and talks about advanced developments in the field of artificial intelligence, information technology and communications.

David Alamos: Thank you very much, Excellency. Indeed, let me also just highlight that we are having, as the Office of Parliamentary Engagement of UNOCT, a fantastic alliance with the Parliamentary Assembly of the Mediterranean. Indeed, in December this year, let me share with you that the Parliamentary Assembly of the Mediterranean became the Presidency and the Chair of the Coordination Mechanism of Parliamentary Assemblies that we are having on issues related to the prevention and countering terrorism. And this specific topic is one of the priorities that has been identified by the 17th Parliamentary Assembly that are a member of participating in the mechanism. We have the honor to have Pan with us as the Chair, with an excellent experience in this topic. So let me open the floor to all the distinguished participants. Please, if you have questions, please just introduce yourself very briefly, please, and then pose the question. So I think we have three questions in this part of the room. Thank you.

Audience: As-salamu alaykum. Soraya speaking in Arabic, if you don’t mind. Today, due to the digital transformation, technology has become open to everyone. And this, of course, encourages innovation, competition, productivity, and creativity. And it reduces privacy at the same time. I mean, we are talking about privacy. There is a threat. And the disappearance of some jobs. I mean, some jobs in many countries will disappear. And it reduces the children who love technology and electronic devices. With these modern devices, what are the legislatures to protect the community, and children in particular? And we are talking about today, we are talking about AI. Thank you so much. In this era of AI. Thank you.

David Alamos: The next question is from

Audience: My name is Tziakoub Yusuf. This is the Council of Representatives of the Kingdom of Bahrain. In light of UNESCO orientation to literacy by adopting education strategy in early childhood, and providing the necessary support and training of the old people. Today, the international gathering suffers from digital literacy. It is considered specifically a kind of damage on humanity. The question is, how can the preliminary community address this type of damage and achieve the balance between innovation and the risk of digital space? Thank you.

David Alamos: Maybe we will take some of the questions and then I can give the floor to the distinguished experts. Please.

Audience: Presidente du Forum des Femmes du Parlementaire de l’APM. C’est un honneur pour moi de m’adresser à vous aujourd’hui, comme Présidente du Forum des Femmes du Parlementaire de l’Assemblée parlementaire de Méditerranée, sur la question des opportunités et des défis pour les femmes liées au développement du domaine numérique. Savez-vous que sur les 2,7 milliards de personnes qui n’ont pas accès à Internet, la majorité sont les femmes et les filles? Les hommes ont 21% plus de chances d’être en ligne que les femmes, un chiffre qui attend 52% dans les pays le moins développés. Ces inégalités foires grandes soulignent l’urgence de combler le fossé numérique entre les genres. Alors que nous sommes avant-garde d’une révolution technologique, il est impératif de veiller à ce que personne ne soit laissé derrière, en particulier les femmes qui continuent de se hériter à des obstacles systémiques, y compris dans l’ère numérique. En tant que législateurs et décideurs publics, nous devons relever ces défis. Si je pense aux femmes dans les contextes ruraux, dont on s’est beaucoup occupé de l’APM, l’expansion de l’infrastructure numérique et la subvention de l’accès à Internet sont des étapes cruciales. Nous devons également demander des comptes aux entreprises technologiques pour parvenir à créer des environnements en lignes plus sûres où les femmes puissent interagir virtuellement sans comptes. Encourager davantage les filles et les jeunes femmes à rejoindre le secteur des technologies pourrait accélérer le développement de technologies sensibles aux genres. Cela pourrait également ouvrir de nouvelles perspectives de carrière. for women in the fields of technology, information and communication, and beyond. This imbalance and abuse does not only harm women, but also weakens democratic systems and socio-economic growth. The PM recognized the reality of this threat and took decisive measures to address it. Through its Forum of Parliamentary Women, the PM works relentlessly to fight against abuse, online abuse based on gender, and pleads in favor of stronger guarantees to protect women in the digital space. The future of Internet governance is not just a question of innovation, it is a question of representation, equity and automation. Let us collaborate for an inclusive digital future so that every woman, whether in a metropolis or an isolated village, can thrive without fear. This theme represents a priority for the Women’s Forum activities for 2025-2026, and I invite you to contribute to the work of the PM. For the next 2025-2026, the President is Maryam Bin Tunaïa of the United Arab Emirates. Thank you very much, and I would like to hear your comments on the role of women in artificial intelligence. Thank you very much. speaker. As an Arab man, I’m very proud that the two representatives of Parliaments from this region are women. We have come a long way. It’s a pleasure to see you sitting and speaking to us. Now, coming to the hard part, because my question is also to you and to other people in the panel, which is how can you guarantee that you put legislations to fight harm? I’m not talking about crime, but to fight harm with a good definition, as Your Excellency has said, without curtailing freedom of exhibition, without curtailing the rights of people to express themselves, without a definition of harm that not only governments can decide on, but also other stakeholders. How can you guarantee that this definition is actually participated in by, as Your Excellency said as well, civilians and citizens, by everybody? Because this is the fear of the civil society, that anti-cybercrime laws, that cybercrime treaty that’s being internationally negotiated, work by the FBI and others, would actually curtail the rights of people to express themselves. Thank you.

David Alamos: Thank you very much. Please.

Audience: Thank you for all the panellists for the very nice talks about harms. My question is a little bit technically for Mr. Jordan, maybe Hadfield or Mr. Dowling or Singh, or anybody can answer please. Agencies and governments around the world are working hard to ensure safety and security of people and agencies. But on the other side, you know, we have the bad guys. Really, they are using also AI to harms, you know. We know the big companies are using AI to protect cyber security and others. So, and they are working the dark side. Nobody almost know what they are doing there. The question is how will the harms will be even, I think it will be even worse. and bigger, like Deepfake and other IT apps. In the future, I think we will not be able to distinguish between reality and the real things and not real things. So I wonder how to fight such very important and difficult crimes, maybe some more. So it’s really, I think, a tough task. Thank you very much.

David Alamos: Thank you very much. I think we have one more question here. And then we move to the other. We also have, OK, sorry.

Audience: Thank you very much, all panelists. I am Abdel Wahabi Aqoubi, a member of the Algerian Parliament of Algerians living abroad. And I am an AI advisor in the Mediterranean Parliament. In fact, my colleagues and brothers in Bahrain excited me to speak in Arabic. And hopefully, my speech will be in English. Dr. Jihad spoke about legislation in the field of AI. In fact, we live in a reality where challenges and future horizons require great flexibility in the field of information technology, where there are new innovations every day. And in Algeria, I personally submitted a legislation to regulate the use of AI, which is the study guide in the legal committee. And I think we will vote on the two laws at the same time. We still need to coordinate within the framework of this parliamentary coordination between the different legislations. After the European Act legislation, you know that in the United States, there is an open field. and towards the lack of regulation and the abandonment of open innovation. We also have a challenge in China. There are some uncoordinated legislations, so the challenge remains how to coordinate these legislations, of course, while maintaining the flexibility that this sector requires. Thank you very much.

David Alamos: Thank you very much, Excellency.

Audience: Hi. Thank you. My name is Agustina. I’m from Argentina and I work at the Chamber of Deputies. I will be asking my question in Spanish. I would like to consult first with the Oversight Board related to why they need an Oversight Board if there is already the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the laws in each country. How do they balance that? Because you shouldn’t need a body to say what is right and what is wrong because the laws already exist in each country and they are local. That’s one thing. And on the other hand, in relation to Australia, to the Member of Parliament of Australia, I would like to know, in relation to the prohibition that was made to minors under 16 years of age to use social media platforms, what kind of approach or interaction did they have with young people considering that young people have the right to access social media? What kind of conversation did they have with young people to protect their rights? Thank you.

David Alamos: Thank you very much. I think we have one here. If you can give the microphone also there, please.

Audience: Really, I just want to comment on the same subject. I mean, we are on the internet. We work on borderless countries. In the old days, we used to protect our country, as the lady from Argentina said, we used to protect our society through the borders. We managed that. Today, everything is done across borders. So the question is, what is the role of the companies in protecting each society? And how would they know the values of each society to protect and the value of the other society, which we assume are wrong, while the other societies are not wrong? So really, there should be a forum or standard or an organisation or a body to help each country with those companies to protect its community from what we believe is an ill-information to our community, which is not an ill-information for the other community. It is a difficult situation, but I think each one of us here as parliamentarians, we have a responsibility to protecting our community. And maybe the companies, the representatives of the companies here could really answer that question, how we can work with them to protect our society and community.

David Alamos: Thank you very much. Please.

Audience: Thank you so much. I do have a comment, but my Arabic language encourages me to address it in Arabic. So please, I will address it in Arabic. My name is Abdulrahman Harbi, I am a Saudi scholar. I would like to thank all the speakers. The discussion was very, very excellent and useful for us. I have a comment that I would like to make. The Saudi Arabian government recently launched two initiatives to protect the child in the field of child protection and to empower women in the field of child protection. And the last announcement was in October last year, and many international countries joined it. I encourage my colleagues here, whether parliamentarians or experts, to join those two initiatives. And those two initiatives bear the name of the Saudi Crown Prince, Prince Mohammed bin Salman. And we are all proud of those two initiatives. And it could be, as the speakers mentioned, that the child and the woman could be weaker in the field of child protection. The second announcement and the second announcement is also from the Saudi Arabian Kingdom. Some colleagues have touched upon the issue of combating terrorism and the use of online and other means. We also have an international initiative through the Center for Equalization, the Center for Equalization, to combat terrorism and to remove all harmful substances that are related to terrorism on all social media platforms. Thank you all.

David Alamos: Thank you very much. I think we have another question there.

Audience: Thank you very much. I am Baraa Julien from Cameroon. I am a member of the National Assembly. First of all, I would like to thank the IGF for this important organization that brings together the government and parliamentarians to talk about the IAEA. It is a very good thing. We know that there is a very rapid evolution of technology, but we still have fears. This fear is unemployment in general. Today, we will have fewer and fewer truck drivers. We will have fewer and fewer people doing interviews and so on, because everything will be given to the IAEA. Let’s think about unemployment in the future. That’s my question.

David Alamos: Thank you very much. Please, yeah.

Audience: Thank you. I am Senator Shweba Falabe Salisu. I’m from Nigeria and the Sherman Senate Committee on High Seat and Cyber Security. Thank you for the very insightful perspective you have shared. I have two questions, particularly for the Oversight Organization. Apart from the issue of content moderation, which is a problem globally, two things are specific to Africa that are concerning. First, about the content moderation itself. What you consider to be less harmful in the Western world, sometimes such publication is harmful in Africa. And therefore, what will pass the test of harmlessness in Europe or America may not pass the test of harmlessness when it comes to Africa. So that’s one concern we’d like you to address. The second concern is also about transparency of the algorithm. Again, we do believe sometimes that some of the big technology companies, they do not operate with the same standard they operate in their home countries when they come to Africa. So how do you hold them accountable? And we also want to be sure that your oversight function as well takes cognizance of the nuances of the values of the culture of the requirements that are specific to African environment. Thank you.

David Alamos: Thank you very much. I think we have one more question.

Audience: In the name of God, and peace and blessings be upon the Messenger of God. I am Abdulhaq Ibrahimi, a member of the Algerian National Council, a member of the legal committee, and a member of the Algerian National Council’s Free Programming Group. First of all, I would like to thank the Saudis for organizing this demonstration, as well as the IGF organizers, for the wonderful and coordinated organization. This has been going on for the past three days until now. I would also like to thank my colleagues and friends from the parliament who are present now, for using the parliamentary diplomacy to encourage developed countries and international organizations to upgrade the internet in our Arab and African countries. Because we see the difficulty in accessing the internet, and the lack of sufficient coverage for the citizens of these countries. Therefore, the use of parliamentary diplomacy in this field is very good. We, as members of the Arab and African parliaments, have passed laws to protect the internet users, as parties or individuals, in order to protect them from, as you all know, cyber-attacks that occur on websites, and that we can use to protect the data and personal data of the users. Also, the parliaments have a big role in legislating, and they must pass laws. As my colleague in the National People’s Assembly said, we in Algeria have proposed laws in the legislative committee for this purpose. May peace be upon you.

David Alamos: Thank you very much. I don’t know if we have any other questions. Yes, I think there is one more. And then I will give the floor to the next speaker.

Audience: I would like to address the question of the Honourable Cameroon, who has raised concerns about the loss of jobs and the fact of artificial intelligence. In addition to this concern, there is also, as far as Africa is concerned, the poverty that marks a fracture between the other states, that is, Europe and us in Africa. So how to address this question so that we can still juggle the fracture between the South and the North? Thank you.

David Alamos: Thank you very much. If I may, then, I would like to give back the floor to the distinguished speakers, so that we have maybe a couple of minutes each of you, please, to respond to the question that you have been addressed with. So I would like to start with Her Excellency Bohute Al-Sheikhail, Member of the Parliament from the Shura Council of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Yes.

Auhoud Al-Shehail: There were two maybe issues that I would like to address. Number one was the education question, and number two was, thank you for the question, because it’s a very passionate topic that I do also study, and that’s my specialty. Guarantees, to be very honest, there are no guarantees in life. But when we talk about Internet, it is a never-ending evolution. At the same time, we also have to be on the same mode of being in a never-ending evaluation. We always have to be in dialogues that are in different fields and sectors to have a very open, like being very open and honest, just like I said, there are no guarantees. But at the same time, having this balance of when a certain law interferes with another or when local laws interfere with international laws, I do always remember, there’s a saying, I’m being very local here, but the Prophet says, your freedom stops when the freedom of others starts. And this is, I think, where our motto comes from when we talk about freedom of expression and the guarantees of having the rights online. Talking about education, we do have to invest more in education, and not just in research, but understanding it. Because, to be honest, I can see a lot of comments that really think differently about AI, or think differently about governance, because our backgrounds does affect us. So investing in awareness and investing also, our kids have different views about artificial intelligence than we do. We think that artificial, maybe I’m being very naive here, but it’s going to take our jobs. In some cases, it is going to open other jobs. I talked to one of the youth kids, and I was telling him, why don’t you get into artificial intelligence? And he said, why do I have to study it? We look differently at it. Ten years ago, studying artificial intelligence was the new thing. They look at it as a regular thing. So we have to think, not for today, but ten years ahead of us. And it’s also very hard to have a balanced policy that regulates security, and regulates societies, and thinking about harm, at the same time, giving space, and having an open spectrum for all citizens to give their opinions. It is very layered, but at the same time, very simple. And we have to look at it from a very balanced way that education and media interferes with each other. So I hope I didn’t exceed my time.

David Alamos: Thank you very much, Excellency. Let me now give the floor, please, to Her Excellency, the second deputy speaker of the Shura Council of the Kingdom of Bahrain. Please.

Jehad Abdulla Al Fadhel: I think it’s very important to have a balanced policy that regulates the speed of development of the Internet, and also there should be a partnership between the parliament, the government, the private sector, and the civil society, so that we can achieve a safe digital environment for growth. Because by building strong parliamentary capabilities in the digital field, we can guarantee the formation of digital policies in a way that contributes to the development of a legislative environment that is able to protect the rights of citizens, whether they are women, children, or any other citizen, especially in this digital era. Also, regarding the question of the colleague from Algeria, I think about unifying legislation. I think it is appropriate to establish an international parliamentary network that is fully connected to the governance of the Internet and cyber security. And the recommendations of the forum related to parliamentary policies can be applied to this network, so that it takes the right path in legislative procedures for each country separately. And lastly, I think we also need to intensify the penalties in our legislations against the harmful and dangerous uses of the dark Internet, especially crimes related to the smuggling of drugs, money laundering, etc.

David Alamos: Thank you very much, Excellency. Let me now please give the floor to Mr. Jordan Hatfield, the legal adviser of the FBI, please.

Jordan Hadfield: Thank you, sir. Thank you for the question, a wonderful question, really thought-provoking questions from everyone. From an FBI standpoint, when we look at investigatively at anything that comes our way, an investigative lead, a threat that we hear about, we want to know what is real, what is dis- or misinformation, what might be part of a larger narrative for a threat, or what is a threat. And so you have to be able to define those things, as what is an online harm, but what is a threat? What is considered a threat to life, to a child or a threat to life, to a city? You mentioned deepfakes, you mentioned generative imagery, which all of those things we’ve seen grow in the last couple of years. We’re now seeing hoaxes on the rise. Not sure for many of you if this will cross the boundaries, but I remember being in grade school, and someone would pull the fire alarm to be able to get out of classes. Today, you go to jail for that, and there are serious consequences. If you’re an adult and if you’re a juvenile, you’re in trouble. So it’s much easier for someone to pull a hoax or to have a phone call with a threat than it has ever been. And so the thing that we know is true is that the law, certainly in the United States, is evolving. And the evolution of those laws to be able to better provide our industry, but also our law enforcement with tools, to be able to actually take law enforcement action, to help our prosecutors take prosecutorial action, so that we can go after the real threats and not the fake ones. We’re guided by, certainly within the FBI and our agents, by the Constitution, First Amendment freedoms. And so every single time we receive a threat, we have to put it through that lens of, does this violate some nature of… Amendment right, is that First Amendment of freedom, is it someone’s freedom of expression or speech or religion or what, what it might be before we then move to the next level. When we discuss what that looks like, we discuss should it be an investigation, should it be a disruption because something has been violated, or should it be a prevention activity. And I think all of those, those three things don’t always necessarily end up in prosecution and someone behind bars and someone paying some sort of, you know, justice for some crime. Ideally, I think in our world how law enforcement might be shifting the future, we want to prevent as much crime as we can. So if we are able to recognize and identify an online harm that hasn’t passed its way into actual criminal activity, we want to do whatever we can to prevent that before it does become a crime. Thank you.

David Alamos: Thank you very much, Mr. Hatfield. Let me now please give the floor to Mr. Singer from APNIC Foundation.

Rajnesh Singh: Thank you, and I echo my fellow panelists’ comment that there were some great questions that came from the floor, and I wish we could sit here and debate a few of those, but I don’t think we have that much time. Just a couple of things I would like to just pick on. There was mention about the need to bring greater diversity, not just in the tech space but in society in general when it comes to women and the role they play. One of the bodies of work that my organization does is all about empowering women, particularly in the tech industry. We have a fairly substantial program that’s been running in Southeast Asia for a number of years now, and to that end, I mean, I can talk about that, but I know we don’t have much time. But if you’re interested to know more, we have a session on that actually at 4.30 p.m. today in workshop room one, and the title is Breaking Barriers, Empowering Women in Network Engineering. So I’d invite you to come and listen from people who are doing that work and see the difference that can be made. Second, there was talk about how to ensure that we get more females and perhaps gender-diverse people as well online. One way to perhaps address that is trying to build safe spaces. There are social, cultural, and economic reasons that that cannot happen, so creating these safe spaces for them may be one way to approach it. And the last point I’d like to make was talk about how there are global or multinational tech companies, and they are all over the world. We use their apps and services, but there’s nothing stopping a local company from developing that either. That’s the beauty of the open Internet model, the multi-stakeholder model that’s been used to develop that Internet means that anyone can basically create any application or services. Whether it’s successful or not, the market will decide. But one thing that I do see missing, and this is perhaps a message to the parliamentarians in the room and online, is that you should look at how your citizens can become creators and not just consumers of what’s available on the Internet. And to do that, you could look at how do you actually support a sustainable local digital ecosystem, not just depend on a foreign digital ecosystem so that you’re just consuming stuff from overseas. That could be the way through innovation hubs to getting education programs in place through tertiary institutions. Lots of ways to do it, but I’ll just leave that as food for thought. Again, thank you for the opportunity.

David Alamos: Thank you very much, Mr. Singh. Let me now turn to Ambassador Dowling from Australia, please.

Brendan Dowling: Thank you. One of the questions went to balancing innovation and rights with measures that governments take to address online harms. I think because we’re at the Internet Governance Forum, I want to underscore your point, Raj, that when we’re talking about content issues, there is a sovereign right for governments to take measures to address online harms. But what we must do is preserve the technical underpinnings of the Internet. So we need to separate these two issues and say content moderation, online harms is a national jurisdiction in consultation globally, but the global interoperability of the technical layer of the Internet is something that we must preserve and not interfere with through national legislation. On how we strike that balance, it’s difficult. It requires us to be considered, thoughtful, consultative, to work with civil society, to work with industry. What I would say is every new phase of digital technology, be it software, social media, AI, immediately we see bad actors utilise this technology to conduct harmful activity. Every new phase see women and girls targeted by malicious actors using this new technology. It’s frustrating when we seem to be surprised by that. We see technology platforms developing AI tools and then saying, oh, turns out it is being used to generate abusive images of women online. We should know and expect, and we need to talk about safety by design at every phase of new technology because we know how the technology will be misused and abused. We have seen this year for the first time a reduction in women participating in public life, in running for parliament because they are subjected to so much abuse online. Our view is the idea that the technology industry and social media companies have been saying for many years, don’t worry, we’ve got this, we’re taking care of our users, they’re not. They have failed abjectly for many years to have true accountability, to really prioritise safety by design, which is why we see governments like ours taking measures to better protect our people online. The balance needs to be struck to say our legislation must always prioritise human rights, must always prioritise privacy, must always be subject to the rule of law. There is a right way to do this, but the days of just accepting the digital world is a free-for-all of the wild west are over. We need to be active in protecting our people online. As I said, it needs to be consultative, it needs to take into account the rights, it needs to take into account privacy. We are implementing a ban on social media accounts for under 16-year-olds. The question went to the consultation with youth. This has been a long-standing community concern that the documented and researched harms to children from social media have not been adequately addressed by social media companies. We now have a 12-month runway to develop how that tool will be developed and implemented. That will involve significant consultation and work on what the technical solutions are. I would say the responsibility through that legislation will be on the platforms to develop tools to limit use of social media accounts by children. It will not impact on the use of the internet for educational and other purposes. It is a big step. It’s a world-leading step. It’s not without controversy, it’s not without difficulty in its design, but I think our movement on that issue comes from a sense of frustration that we have not seen adequate measures by technology platforms to protect the well-being of children online.

David Alamos: Thank you very much, Excellency. Let me turn now to Mrs Nijata from the Oversight Board. Please, you have the floor.

Nighat Dad: There were two questions. One was related to why a platform company needs an Oversight Board when there are universal laws. I would say that any powerful institution or entity actually needs an oversight. We do have oversight bodies and committees in the Parliament to keep check on government actions as well. We do need these oversight bodies over internet companies and tech giants, what they are exactly doing. We don’t want a bunch of white dudes sitting in Silicon Valley deciding for the rest of the world. If you look at decisions of Oversight Board, you will see that we actually have looked into the international human rights framework. That’s the central approach while we decide these cases. I think it’s also important for us to know that while governments are legislating and initiating regulations around technology and tech platforms, let’s just be honest, many governments are also departing from human rights framework. It’s important for us to see how we can hold not only tech companies accountable, but governments as well. That’s something, not as a member of Oversight Board, but as a civil society member working on digital rights in Pakistan. With regards to your question, Your Excellency, around context, I would say the board is a very diverse group of people. We have a board member from Africa. Her name is Ms. Afia. If you look at the decisions of the board, they are from all regions. One very small example that maybe people sitting in the room will relate to, META reached out to us for a particular term, Shaheed, which is an Arabic word. This is the most over-enforced word on the platform, and they reached out to us asking us, give us advice on how we can approach this particular terminology. We all know, I’m in Pakistan, in India, in Bangladesh, in Saudi Arabia, the word Shaheed we use in different ways, there are different contexts. Coming to your point of context, we actually deliberated on that particular issue for a year and received comments from all over the world. We told META that you should stop presuming that the word Shaheed, when used to refer to a designated individual or unnamed members of a designated organization, is always violating and ineligible for policy exceptions. There is this context that maybe Global North does not understand what the word Shaheed means. We do understand. That’s what we told META to do, and they are actually implementing our recommendations. I will actually encourage parliamentarians sitting in the room to read the decisions that we have given, because there’s so much nuance in there. It will not only help the parliamentarians while they are drafting their own laws, but also while they are looking into seeing the body and presuming that this is just the Global North body. It’s not. It’s a very diverse body, and we are making all the efforts to hold this company accountable, and I feel that all other companies also need to have such kind of bodies. But Mr. Ambassador, I would like to really appreciate the E-Safety Commission, the work that Madam Julia has done and also encouraged commissioners all over the world. She also really appreciates our work and all the work that we have done. One of our priorities now is to look into the well-being of young people on the platform as well. Thank you.

David Alamos: I would like to say that we have the pleasure to count also in the room with the Speaker of the Parliament of Kenya. I would like to give him the floor, please.

Audience: Thank you so much. I know we are in the decision, but I don’t want to take this opportunity to welcome His Excellency, President of Kenya Parliament, and thank you on behalf of our Shura Council Speaker, Dr. Abdallah Sheikh. I would like to welcome him and thank him for his attending. And I will pass the mic for him if he would like to say some remarks, please. Okay, no problem. I am the President of the Parliament of Guinea. I came here, like the other countries in the world, like the other parliamentarians, to bring our solidarity, to bring our support to the very relevant debates that are taking place in this country today, dedicated to the governance of the Internet, which is no longer a secret to anyone. The Internet has become a social necessity, a cultural necessity, a necessity for the development of the economy and the modernization of the world. But it is extremely important that the issue of the Internet is debated in an appropriate institutional framework, where all the actors, both the politicians, the multinationals, the parliamentarians, as well as the representatives of civil society and the media, can each communicate and bring their point of view. In a few words today, digital solidarity is an essential alternative to build a globally turned world towards human values. Digital solidarity is an obligatory step to allow the balanced development of the whole world. Because without digital solidarity, the gap between developed and underdeveloped countries will still widen. And with technology, inequalities are even more serious. That is why I invite all of you here to invest in a process of regulation of the Internet through national laws, but also international agreements that can guarantee the use of the Internet in respect of human rights. And to conclude, I thank and congratulate the Saudi authorities for the opportunity given to my country to come and bring their opinions, their ideas, to this debate which is extremely important for a globally resilient world, for a world where human rights are respected. I conclude by simply saying that the Internet is very good. It is an obligation today for a modern world, but the Internet must be used in respect of human rights. So humanizing the Internet is what can allow the world to evolve towards shared prosperity. And I want to inform developed countries, those that have a certain technological breakthrough, let’s agree that the gap between technologically developed countries and underdeveloped countries as long as they are created, the world will not know stability and social peace. That is why digital solidarity is the key word that I am carrying today on behalf of all African countries, on behalf of all African parliaments. Thank you for your attention.

David Alamos: Thank you very much, Excellency, for your enlightening message, absolutely. We are a bit above the schedule, so I would like just to very briefly conclude this distinguished panel of experts and the session. I would like just to insist and to highlight how important it is really to have a multi-stakeholder approach, a collaborative approach, basically to address online harms. We have huge challenges ahead. We need a whole of society and a whole of government approach, now more than ever in these specific issues, to ensure that we provide safety online. We need to take special consideration, especially to the most vulnerable groups. We need to ensure that human rights are at the front of all the decisions and the actions that we are going to decide, basically. And we have to ensure access is very important. It has been said here, it has been said in previous sessions, so we need to ensure access to everybody in a safety environment and we need to enhance education, we need to enhance capacities so that we are able to have a better scenario, a better access and a better benefits of internet. And of course, this has to be done with precise and accurate laws. We have a very important role by members of parliament on these accurate laws that are able to be implemented and that we are able also to have an oversight mechanism also to see how the implementation of the laws are. So with that, I would like to thank first the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia for hosting this fantastic event here in this fantastic venue and also to the Shura Council of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and to IGF and of course I would like to thank each of the distinguished and excellent speakers that have accompanied us during this panel and to all of you for your intervention and questions. Thank you very much and have a very nice day. Thank you.

Agreement Points

Multi-stakeholder approach to address online harms

Jordan Hadfield

Brendan Dowling

Rajnesh Singh

Nighat Dad

Auhoud Al-Shehail

Jehad Abdulla Al Fadhel

Collaboration between law enforcement, industry, and prosecutors

Government legislation driven by community concerns

Need for open, interoperable internet infrastructure

Importance of diverse oversight bodies for tech platforms

Balancing rights and security in legislation

Partnership between parliament, government, private sector and civil society

All speakers emphasized the importance of collaboration between various stakeholders in addressing online harms, including government, industry, civil society, and international partners.

Protecting vulnerable groups online

Jordan Hadfield

Brendan Dowling

Rajnesh Singh

Nighat Dad

Auhoud Al-Shehail

Addressing child exploitation through international task forces

Legislation to protect children from online harms

Programs to empower women in tech

Considering cultural context in content moderation

Education and awareness initiatives

Speakers agreed on the need to protect vulnerable groups, particularly children and women, from online harms through various means including legislation, education, and targeted programs.

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized the importance of incorporating safety and human rights considerations from the outset in technology development and oversight.

Brendan Dowling

Nighat Dad

Safety by design in new technologies

Using human rights frameworks in oversight

Both speakers highlighted the importance of local capacity building and education in addressing online harms and promoting digital development.

Rajnesh Singh

Auhoud Al-Shehail

Supporting local digital ecosystems

Education and awareness initiatives

Unexpected Consensus

Need for ongoing evaluation and adaptation of policies

Auhoud Al-Shehail

Brendan Dowling

Ongoing evaluation of policies

Safety by design in new technologies

Despite coming from different backgrounds, both speakers emphasized the need for continuous evaluation and adaptation of policies to keep pace with rapidly evolving technology and emerging threats.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The speakers generally agreed on the importance of multi-stakeholder collaboration, protecting vulnerable groups online, and the need for ongoing policy adaptation. There was also consensus on the importance of balancing innovation with regulation and human rights considerations.

Consensus level

High level of consensus among speakers, suggesting a shared understanding of key challenges and potential approaches to addressing online harms. This consensus implies potential for coordinated international efforts in developing policies and strategies to combat online harms while preserving the benefits of digital technologies.

Different Viewpoints

Role of government regulation in addressing online harms

Brendan Dowling

Rajnesh Singh

Government legislation driven by community concerns

Need for open, interoperable internet infrastructure

Dowling advocates for stronger government regulation to address online harms, while Singh emphasizes the importance of maintaining an open and interoperable internet infrastructure, cautioning against over-regulation that could impact core internet functionality.

Unexpected Differences

Approach to addressing online harms

Jordan Hadfield

Brendan Dowling

Collaboration between law enforcement, industry, and prosecutors

Government legislation driven by community concerns

While both speakers advocate for addressing online harms, their approaches differ unexpectedly. Hadfield emphasizes international collaboration and task forces, focusing on law enforcement and prosecution, while Dowling prioritizes government legislation driven by community concerns. This difference is notable given that both represent government perspectives.

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement revolve around the role of government regulation, the balance between innovation and protection, and the most effective approaches to addressing online harms.

difference_level

The level of disagreement among the speakers is moderate. While there is general consensus on the need to address online harms and protect vulnerable groups, there are significant differences in the proposed methods and the extent of government involvement. These differences reflect the complex nature of internet governance and the challenges in balancing various stakeholder interests. The implications of these disagreements suggest that a unified approach to addressing online harms may be difficult to achieve, and that solutions may need to be tailored to specific cultural and legal contexts.

Partial Agreements

Both speakers agree on the need to protect vulnerable groups online, particularly children. However, they differ in their approaches. Dowling supports government legislation, such as banning social media accounts for under 16-year-olds, while Dad emphasizes the importance of considering cultural context in content moderation decisions through diverse oversight bodies.

Brendan Dowling

Nighat Dad

Legislation to protect children from online harms

Considering cultural context in content moderation

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized the importance of incorporating safety and human rights considerations from the outset in technology development and oversight.

Brendan Dowling

Nighat Dad

Safety by design in new technologies

Using human rights frameworks in oversight

Both speakers highlighted the importance of local capacity building and education in addressing online harms and promoting digital development.

Rajnesh Singh

Auhoud Al-Shehail

Supporting local digital ecosystems

Education and awareness initiatives

Key Takeaways

A multi-stakeholder, collaborative approach is crucial for addressing online harms effectively

Protecting vulnerable groups like children and women online is a key priority

There is a need to balance innovation, rights, and regulation in the digital space

Addressing the digital divide and ensuring equitable access is important for global stability

Education and awareness are critical for safe internet use

Precise and implementable legislation is needed to govern the online space

Oversight mechanisms are important for both tech companies and governments

Resolutions and Action Items

Australia implementing a ban on social media accounts for under 16-year-olds, with a 12-month development period

FBI participating in international task forces and Interpol specialist groups to combat online child exploitation

APNIC Foundation running programs to empower women in tech in Southeast Asia

Oversight Board advising META on context-specific content moderation, e.g. for the term ‘Shaheed’

Unresolved Issues

How to effectively balance freedom of expression with protection from online harms

Addressing the potential job losses due to AI and automation

How to ensure consistent application of content moderation across different cultural contexts

Developing a unified approach to internet governance across different countries

How to close the digital divide between developed and developing countries

Suggested Compromises

Creating safe online spaces for vulnerable groups while maintaining open internet access

Implementing safety-by-design principles in new technologies to preemptively address potential harms

Balancing national sovereignty in content regulation with preserving global interoperability of internet infrastructure

Engaging in extensive consultation with various stakeholders, including youth, when developing new internet regulations

The rapid evolution of technology brings with it a lot of benefits, but also brings different forms of what does harm mean. And the starting point, I do believe, as a Parliament member is, what does online harm mean? Because we keep talking about it, but we really don’t know, because as technology develops, those forms and those harms keep developing.

speaker

Auhoud Al-Shehail

reason

This comment highlights the fundamental challenge of defining and addressing online harms in a rapidly evolving technological landscape. It sets the stage for a more nuanced discussion about the complexities involved in legislating for online safety.

impact

It shifted the conversation towards the need for flexible and adaptable approaches to online harm regulation, prompting other speakers to address the challenges of balancing innovation with protection.

Australia has been quite active in addressing online harms. We’ve been very active in passing legislation that drives greater accountability for social media platforms, for technology platforms to take more serious action to address online harms. That has all been driven by multi-stakeholder approach.

speaker

Brendan Dowling

reason

This comment provides a concrete example of how a country is addressing online harms through legislation and multi-stakeholder engagement. It offers a practical perspective on implementing regulatory frameworks.

impact

It sparked discussion about the role of government regulation and the importance of involving various stakeholders in developing policies to address online harms.

I think you also have to be very clear on what the internet is not. And what I mean by that is that the internet itself is the core infrastructure that makes all this happen. Applications and services, the things that people use on the internet, are a different thing. And I think too often we conflate the two.

speaker

Rajnesh Singh

reason

This comment introduces an important distinction between internet infrastructure and applications/services, highlighting a common misconception in discussions about internet regulation.

impact

It prompted a more nuanced conversation about the targets of regulation and the potential unintended consequences of poorly targeted policies on the core functioning of the internet.

We receive these comments, we process them, and then we deliberate on our cases. One of the examples just recently is the case that we decided is over the phrase on river to the sea, which was basically users around the world had this complaint that it was over-enforced on META platforms.

speaker

Nighat Dad

reason

This comment provides a concrete example of how the Oversight Board operates, demonstrating the practical application of multi-stakeholder input in content moderation decisions.

impact

It led to a deeper discussion about the challenges of content moderation across different cultural contexts and the importance of diverse perspectives in decision-making processes.

We see technology platforms developing AI tools and then saying, oh, turns out it is being used to generate abusive images of women online. We should know and expect, and we need to talk about safety by design at every phase of new technology because we know how the technology will be misused and abused.

speaker

Brendan Dowling

reason

This comment highlights the need for proactive approaches to technology development that anticipate potential misuse, particularly in relation to vulnerable groups.

impact

It shifted the discussion towards the responsibilities of technology companies and the need for preventative measures in technology design and implementation.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by highlighting the complexities of defining and addressing online harms in a rapidly evolving technological landscape. They emphasized the need for multi-stakeholder approaches, the importance of distinguishing between internet infrastructure and services, and the necessity of proactive, culturally sensitive approaches to content moderation and technology development. The discussion evolved from general concerns about online harms to more specific considerations of regulatory approaches, the role of oversight bodies, and the responsibilities of technology companies in ensuring online safety.

How to balance addressing online harms with protecting freedom of expression and other rights?

speaker

Audience member (unnamed)

explanation

This is a key challenge in regulating online spaces while preserving fundamental rights.

How to combat the use of AI and advanced technologies by malicious actors to create more sophisticated online harms?

speaker

Audience member (unnamed)

explanation

As AI advances, there are concerns about its potential misuse to create more harmful content like deepfakes.

How to address unemployment concerns arising from AI and automation?

speaker

Baraa Julien (Cameroon National Assembly member)

explanation

There are fears about job losses in certain sectors as AI and automation increase.

How to bridge the digital divide between developed and developing countries?

speaker

Audience member (unnamed)

explanation

Ensuring equitable access to digital technologies globally remains a challenge.

How can content moderation practices account for different cultural contexts?

speaker

Senator Shweba Falabe Salisu (Nigeria)

explanation

Content considered harmless in some regions may be harmful in others, requiring nuanced moderation approaches.

How to ensure transparency in algorithms used by tech companies, especially in Africa?

speaker

Senator Shweba Falabe Salisu (Nigeria)

explanation

There are concerns about tech companies potentially operating with different standards in different regions.

How to create safe online spaces for women and girls?

speaker

Audience member (unnamed, representing Parliamentary Assembly of the Mediterranean)

explanation

Women and girls face disproportionate online abuse, impacting their participation in public life.

How to support the development of local digital ecosystems?

speaker

Rajnesh Singh (APNIC Foundation)

explanation

Encouraging local innovation and creation, not just consumption of foreign digital products.

Summary

This discussion focused on youth participation in digital governance and policymaking, bringing together parliamentarians and youth leaders. The conversation highlighted the importance of including young people in legislative processes and decision-making regarding digital technologies and artificial intelligence.

Parliamentarians shared various initiatives to engage youth, such as youth parliaments, lowering the age for political participation, and creating mentorship programs. They emphasized the need for inclusive policymaking that considers the perspectives of young people who have grown up with digital technologies.

Youth representatives stressed the importance of genuine participation rather than tokenism. They called for institutionalizing youth involvement through consultative bodies, structured forums, and fair compensation for their contributions. The discussion also touched on the challenges of funding youth political participation and changing cultural perceptions about young politicians.

Several key points emerged, including the need for contextualized legislation that considers local disparities in digital access and literacy, the importance of accountability in protecting digital rights, and the value of intergenerational dialogue in shaping digital policies. Participants also discussed the balance between embracing technological opportunities and addressing potential risks.

The conversation concluded with calls for responsible digital education, mechanisms for youth to directly petition parliaments, and recognition of young people as partners rather than beneficiaries in policymaking. Overall, the discussion underscored the critical role of youth in shaping a more inclusive digital future and the need for sustained efforts to empower their participation in governance processes.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– The importance of youth participation in policymaking and digital governance

– Strategies for engaging youth in political processes, like youth parliaments and lowering voting ages

– Challenges in including youth perspectives, such as funding and communication gaps

– The need for responsible digital education and balancing youth engagement with national security concerns

– The unique perspective youth bring to digital issues given their familiarity with technology

Overall purpose:

The goal was to foster dialogue between youth leaders and parliamentarians on priorities for a more inclusive digital future, exploring how young people can effectively contribute to policymaking and legislative procedures related to digital governance.

Tone:

The discussion had a collaborative and constructive tone throughout. There was a sense of mutual respect between the youth representatives and parliamentarians, with both sides acknowledging the importance of youth involvement while also recognizing the need for responsible engagement. The tone became more urgent and action-oriented towards the end as participants made final appeals for concrete steps to increase youth participation.

Speakers

– Keith Andere: Moderator

– Sahar Albazar: Member of Parliament from Egypt

– Ihita Gangavarapu: Coordinator of India Youth IGF

– Duaa Albalawi: Head of Y20 delegation at Y20 summit in Brazil

– Dansa Kourouma: President of the Parliament of the Republic of Guinea

– Tobias Bacherle: Member of Parliament from Germany

Additional speakers:

– Jose Keja: From Ghana African Youth IGF

– Noa Abdubeki: From Egypt

– Srinath Govindarajan: From India

– Matilda Moses Mashauri: Youth participant

– Alpha Abdoulaye Diallo: President of the Economic Affairs and Sustainable Development Commission of the Guinean Parliament

– Alha Jimbo: Member of the Gambia and Pan-African Parliament

– Unnamed Senator from Nigeria

Youth Participation in Digital Governance: Insights from the IGF Parliamentary Track

This summary provides an overview of a discussion on youth participation in digital governance and policymaking, held as part of the Internet Governance Forum’s (IGF) parliamentary track. The event brought together parliamentarians and youth leaders from various countries, exploring strategies for engaging young people in legislative processes and decision-making regarding digital technologies and artificial intelligence.

Introduction and Context

The discussion, moderated by a representative from the Inter-Parliamentary Union, aimed to bridge the gap between policymakers and youth in the realm of digital governance. Participants spoke in both English and French, highlighting the international nature of the dialogue.

Key Themes and Contributions

1. Increasing Youth Representation in Politics

Sahar Albazar, a Member of Parliament from Egypt, advocated for lowering voting and candidacy ages to increase youth representation. She highlighted Egypt’s efforts, including the World Youth Forum, which brings together young people from around the globe to discuss pressing issues.

Dansa Kourouma, President of the Parliament of the Republic of Guinea, shared his country’s initiative of creating a National Youth Parliament. This body allows young people to debate issues and present recommendations to the national parliament, fostering direct engagement in the legislative process.

2. Empowering Youth Through Resources and Recognition

Tobias Bacherle, a Member of Parliament from Germany, emphasized the need to provide funding and resources to enable youth political participation. He noted, “We grew up with mobile phones, with smartphones… So many things that seem to be a change for all the colleagues, because they witnessed how media and media usage has changed, is for us rather something that we are completely used to.”

Ihita Gangavarapu, Coordinator of India Youth IGF, stressed the importance of treating youth as partners, not just beneficiaries, in policymaking. She called for institutionalizing youth consultation in legislative processes to ensure consistent and meaningful engagement.

3. Digital Rights and Ethical AI Development

Duaa Albalawi, Head of Y20 delegation at Y20 summit in Brazil, asserted that “Youth participation is not a privilege. It is a God-given right.” She called for building a global ethical framework for AI development and regulation, as well as empowering citizens to protect their data privacy and ownership.

4. Balancing Innovation with Traditional Values

Dansa Kourouma raised an important point about the relationship between technological progress and cultural values: “Do you agree with me that modernity, the race towards innovation and modernity, cannot be decided by the government alone? It is necessary for parliaments and parliamentarians to be convinced that modernity should not be the antipode of traditional values, of human values.”

5. Responsible Digital Citizenship and Security Concerns

The importance of responsible digital education was highlighted by several speakers. Dansa Kourouma emphasized the need to educate youth on the responsible use of technology and social media.

An unnamed Nigerian Senator introduced a note of caution, stating, “Countries are not run on social media. Countries also have, I mean, the youth, as they are doing the engagement, as they are on social media, they must also know that certain things border on national security.” This comment highlighted the need to balance digital engagement with awareness of broader national concerns.

6. Strategies for Youth Engagement

Several practical strategies were proposed to enhance communication and collaboration between young people and policymakers:

– Using social media and digital tools for political communication (Tobias Bacherle)

– Creating mentorship programs connecting youth with parliamentarians (Sahar Albazar)

– Broadcasting parliamentary debates on social media platforms (Dansa Kourouma)

– Establishing mechanisms for youth to directly petition parliaments (mentioned by multiple speakers)

Conclusion

The discussion underscored the critical role of youth in shaping a more inclusive digital future and the need for sustained efforts to empower their participation in governance processes. It highlighted the importance of balancing technological progress with cultural values, security considerations, and responsible use of technology.

The moderator concluded the session by thanking the participants and inviting them to future IGF events, emphasizing the ongoing nature of this important dialogue on youth participation in digital governance.

Keith Andere: the colleagues 33 seconds to just say their name and one interesting thing about them so that the colleagues can remember who you are and what is interesting about you. So we always talk about future generations and the future is now so as the future generations are the most affected by our global future young people have a leading role in the digital transformation journey in all aspects you know through our dedicated youth track a global network of young people active in the digital sphere has organized workshops across all regions around the theme empowering youth leaders for trusted AI which will culminate into the IGF 2024 youth summit that has already happened for some of you who already followed that and this session just brings together youth leaders and parliamentarians to foster a dialogue on priorities and perspective for a more inclusive digital future so having said that I want to give my able panelists just 30 seconds 33 seconds to say your name and something interesting about yourself thank you maybe I’ll start on my far right

Sahar Albazar: thank you my name is MP Sahar Albazar I’m from Egypt something to remember me with I am one of the young women parliamentarians in Egypt but I will forever be young at heart

Ihita Gangavarapu: hi everyone good afternoon I’m Aihita Gangavarapu the coordinator of India Youth IGF so it’s a pleasure to be here and one interesting thing about me the fact that I belong to one of the most one of the most populous nations and with more than 50% of the population is young people and it’s a privilege to be working with young people in the last seven years

Duaa Albalawi: hi everyone my name is Dua Al-Blouie a fun fact about me is my name is Dua which means prayer in Arabic because I was actually born premature at six months old and my parents thought I was going to pass away a little bit about me and why I’m here today so I actually headed the Y20 delegation at the Y20 summit in Brazil earlier this year so hopefully today I’ll be sharing our collective perspective as G20 countries thank you so much

Keith Andere: thank you Dua and the honorable speaker you have the floor

Dansa Kourouma: merci beaucoup je suis Dansa Kuruman je suis le président du parlement de la République de Guinée dans la capitale de Conakry et je suis médecin de formation et avant d’être au parlement j’étais le président du conseil national de la société civile de la Guinée donc de l’hôpital à la société civile et aujourd’hui à la tête du parlement merci merci beaucoup

Keith Andere: so we’ll go straight to the meat and the flesh of the discussion today and it’s only obvious that we start off with our members of parliament and so I’ll put straight the questions to you from your perspective as members of parliament how can young people most effectively contribute to the policy making and legislative procedures maybe you can provide some concrete examples from your respective countries and parliaments if you may

Sahar Albazar: sure thank you so much for the important question I would start with that young people are not only the future but they are our active contributors and in our present time for policies and legislations I will give few examples in Egypt how we can engage young people in our processes in 2017 for example our president Abdel Fattah el-Sisi launched the World Youth Forum which is a platform where we bring young people from all around the world to come and spend almost a week in Egypt where they come together have voice and this platform yield at the end of the day a collective voice of Egyptian young people who created an entity or a body called the Coordination Committee for parties young leaders and youth leaders and politicians this committee now have in parliament 31 MP and 12 in our senate so we were able to move these young people from only a platform they were just voicing their wishes to be part of the parliament that’s one of the initiatives another thing is which is very close to my heart it’s the simulation of the parliament where we go to schools and the students have simulation for the parliament and after they do the simulation we do a competition and the winner the winning school will have the group of these students come to the parliament itself to live the real parliamentary experience so this is very close to my heart because we are not only trying to empower youth we also include the children in the schools which is very important for the coming generations sorry I thought someone was speaking another thing is mentorship this is also very important because usually when you ask a kid in the school or a young person in a university what would what what do you want to do when you grow up how or where do you see yourself in the future being a politician is not something that is close to the mind so mentoring them and having MPs who are close to their age a little bit it’s very important to to have role models that really can speak to you can use your language understand your issues that you feel comfortable speaking with so mentorship is very very important and I personally always volunteer in my time to mentor African youth and also there are networks for global youth where I spend more time trying to mentor young people another important aspect for me is or tool that we as parliaments and as governments and as countries can use is to reduce and decrease the the running age running for elections age. So, for example, in Egypt in 2014, when we have the constitution change, we changed the age, the minimum age for running from 30 to 25. And in my global advocacy work, we’re trying to push to have the age of having driving license, which is the same age where you can vote, can be the same age where you can run. Because if you are wise enough to choose who to vote for, you’re definitely wise enough to run if you want. And you can find other countries, like in the US, in a state level parliament, like in Vermont, their parliament, all the representatives are starting 18. So this is also an example of how you include and engage young people in the process of decision making and policy making. I will end here, so I can give the rest time to contribute.

Keith Andere: So that sounds very interesting. And I like how you’ve closed it by saying, you know, the importance of making sure, and I think it’s practical in most of our countries, that we can’t run at the age where we start voting. So that is something to point about. But we have another colleague, Honorable Tobias, who is a member of parliament from Germany, who is connected online. But before we come to him, the Honorable Speaker would like to make a statement. So I would like to invite him to share his statement.

Dansa Kourouma: Thank you, Honorable Moderator. For my part, I would like to start by thanking the Saudi authorities and all the organizers of this forum, which is of indisputable relevance. And if you visit Riyadh, you have the obligation to be convinced of a reality, that modernity and the conservation of authentic values are considerable. There is a possibility of having a dialogue between the race towards modernity, while keeping the traditional values, the authentic values. This is the most important observation in Riyadh. So this leads me to develop my thesis on a certain number of considerations, which are both the responsibilities of parliaments, but also the responsibilities of states. Do you agree with me that modernity, the race towards innovation and modernity, cannot be decided by the government alone? It is necessary for parliaments and parliamentarians to be convinced that modernity should not be the antipode of traditional values, of human values. Because my conviction is that any economic, scientific and technical progress that leaves the human value behind is counterproductive. This is why when we talk about artificial intelligence, we talk about robotics, we talk about everything that is considered from a technological point of view today, we must be vigilant that scientific and technological progress does not leave the human being, does not leave human values in the background. This is why parliamentarians are led to legislate while taking into account the aspirations of their people. This is why technological progress is impossible without the adhesion of parliaments, which are the representations of the different diversities that make up the countries. The second consideration that seems to me to be important is that artificial intelligence is a decision-making tool, and it is a decision-making tool that must be made by the government. It is a decision-making tool, and it is a decision-making tool that must be made by the government. It is also an opportunity, but we are responsible as parliamentarians to provide countries with better laws, better policies and programs that enable the use of artificial intelligence to be humanized. But the question of knowing whether we should go towards artificial intelligence is no longer a question. It is a reality, it is an essential perspective. But how to go about it? We must be guaranteed by laws, laws that prevent drift, laws that prevent dehumanization, laws that prevent the recolonization of countries that have not advanced in terms of technology. Because if colonization by man has been difficult to support, technological colonization is even more serious because we are dealing with machines, we are dealing with systems that are not human. So, it is extremely important that national laws are put in line with international laws. This is why national laws alone are not enough to frame, to tame artificial intelligence. Conventions and international laws must be rethought between countries through cooperation between states and the involvement of the United Nations and other organizations and other international bodies. This is what can guarantee the use of artificial intelligence today for the well-being of the population, for social and economic progress. I would like to add a third element from the point of view of consideration. It is education and digital solidarity. As I said earlier in my introduction, if I am present at this meeting to represent my parliament, it is to make the countries that have advanced in terms of technology understand that they will not feel safe unless other countries are at the bottom of the scale. We need solidarity because communication today, the reduction of gaps between nations, between peoples, is a challenge to the current world. This is why we must not accept that the gap grows between countries that have advanced and countries that are poor. If the world is a planetary village, it means that we must communicate with each other, we must help each other. This is why solidarity and digital education, especially for the benefit of youth, is an extremely important alternative for countries. I would like to add one last element. Our young MP earlier referred to the reduction of the age to participate in elections in countries. This is also the responsibility of the parliament. I am giving a consideration. In my country, 75% of young people participate in elections. 70% of the population is under 40, 75% of the population. But there are less than 20% of young people under 40 in parliament. This is a paradox. This is why parliamentarians must be extremely vigilant and that laws must reflect the needs of the population, the needs of society. It should not be dictated by interests, by sovereignty, necessarily. It is the possibility given to the entire population to participate in public governance. For me, this is extremely important. In my country, the age to be a deputy was 25 years. We reduced it in the new constitution to 21 years to allow 75% of the population to participate. And the age for the presidential election, we reduced it to 35 years to allow young people, according to the African Charter of Youth, to also participate in the presidential elections. To conclude my remarks, the Internet, artificial intelligence, is a way to improve democratic governance today, in particular to facilitate the participation of all layers of the population wherever they are in the elections. Artificial intelligence, the digital, allows to reduce the constraints related to the participation of one and the other. But beware, it is also an open door to electoral fraud. If the laws and conventions are not respected and the developed countries do not cooperate with the underdeveloped countries to regulate the use and use of the Internet for the good of the population. I am for the Internet, I am for artificial intelligence, but I am for the responsibility of parliamentarians, the responsibility of states and international institutions so that the Internet does not constitute an uncontrollable monster that dehumanizes the world instead of facilitating prosperity and accelerating growth and global development. Thank you.

Keith Andere: I believe we will resonate with. And for us who come from Africa, some of us will remember the Not Too Young to Run campaign, which was influencing and urging young people to take up this space. So this is a very, very valid conversation. So we will take up Honorable Tobias, who is a member of parliament from Germany. Unfortunately, our display screens are doing the tech thing, so we are not able to see him, but I believe we can hear him. Tobias, if you can hear me, just say hello.

Tobias Bacherle: Hi, good to hear you. At least I can see you as well so. Well, I can promise everyone that you’re handsome. So please go straight to answering the questions. Thank you. Yeah, thank you very much. And first of all, sorry, I cannot be there in person. Maybe that’s a fun fact I have for you. I had to vote on our snap elections yesterday. And since we have plenary tomorrow, again, I was not able to fly over for just half a day. But I’m very sorry for that. I think it’s very interesting to talk about young people in politics, in the field of digitalization. Because, I mean, of course, there is, we already heard about young people playing plenary sessions. And I think this is incredibly important. Young people are our future. They are the future of our democracies, of our parliamentarian systems as well. But besides that, it’s also important to have a different way of communication with them. And I mean, I don’t mean that they should be not taken serious. I don’t don’t mean that. Just talk to them as you would talk to any citizen, of course. But they have different ways of communication. And yeah, many, many older people by now also use WhatsApp and Facebook and Instagram and so on. But I think there’s one very important difference for, and I’m still saying I turned 30 now. So I’m not really young, young, young anymore. But I still would take myself into the younger generation. We grew up with mobile phones, with smartphones, and so on. When I was, I think, 12, the iPhone was introduced. So many things that seem to be a change for all the colleagues, because they witnessed how media and media usage has changed. is for us rather something that we are completely used to, that is the environment we grew up with, that we feel comfortable getting information and also having political debates. And I think this is important to take into account. We see many older colleagues, many very smart politicians that drive their platforms throughout digital communication skills. But I think very often, if we look very closely, there are younger people involved that are actually driving that campaign, that are pushing for those parts in the campaign. But there is also a different or second part in having that perspective on digital communication tools, because I would argue digital communication tools and the platforms that I have mentioned before, and I mean, those are huge companies that have a certain interest making money, but they also provide a critical infrastructure for our political debates. And I think this is something, as much as I value older colleagues and sometimes even envy how much they have experienced and how much they also can recall from their memory, I think what I just described in a matter on how do we communicate to young people also goes for how do we politically approach digital topics? How much value, how much central points do we give to digital communication tools? And what I often experience is that older colleagues, if they don’t understand something, in Europe, we have that when it came to telegram, we had the big demonstrations around the corona. Basically, jump to was like being a bit afraid and deciding to talk about, shall we forbid telegram? How can we shut down that kind of information system? And I think that’s something we should not do. The contrary, and many young people were like, excuse my language, but we’re like, what the fuck are you talking about? First of all, how do you want to do that on technical level? And second of all, this is our information space. We don’t shut down your TV stations or your newspapers as well. And I think having that part within the debate is incredibly powerful. And it again, involves young people also in politics because it’s topics that are very close to their heart and reflect their reality.

Keith Andere: Thanks Tobias. I think what you’re talking about, especially the political communication and the role of digital tools to support political communication is a very big conversation. Now that you’re talking about young people being behind the keyboards, supporting key political players around this and the issue of shutdowns, be it platform shutdown, be it throttling of the internet, are very big and pertinent conversations that I’ve had from various young people and various forums that we are here. And I think it’s important that this has come out from a young parliamentarian from a Global North perspective. So we’ll dive straight to our youth leaders and not to gag you, just maintain three minutes of time so that we are able to flow. I can see already hands coming up and it’s not yet time. So young people are critical voice in digital governance. Do you agree? At least we can agree. As dedicated youth representatives, what would you like members of our parliaments to consider in the legislative procedure? And maybe what are some of the obstacles and further including youth perspectives in digital governance? Over to you. Perfect, three minutes. Okay.

Ihita Gangavarapu: Hi everyone, I’m Aihita. So I’d like to start off with talking about the vision of the internet itself, right? Me personally, as a young person would want the internet to be a truly digital public infrastructure that is secure, safe, reliable, and accessible for all. Now, this is not something that’s possible just by young people or just by lawmakers. It’s a cooperation and collaboration between the both. So that brings us to your question around legislative procedures. And the most important aspect of the legislative procedure is for it to truly empower all of us. And that’s possible if we have an inclusive policymaking and legislative procedure. And when I say that, I’m talking about real youth participation. So youth itself is not a monolith. We, within the young people category, we have different stakeholders from different economies, different cultures, different languages, different understanding of technologies in the societies. So inclusion, especially from the consultations part of it, especially when we have the bills coming out in India, whenever there is a bill, since being the coordinator of Youth IGF, we ensure that whenever there’s a public consultation, young people are made aware, and we as a community of young people make sure our comments and inputs are provided to the consultation on the bills. Similarly, the tokenism aspect, there should not be any tokenism. There has to be real participation. and such that the outcomes are incorporated in the actual outcomes. And when we talk about consultation, there has to be mechanisms to ensure that the young people are drawn towards these consultations. The inputs are provided, they are made to understand why it is important to voice themselves. The second thing with respect to legislation that I talk about is contextualized legislation design. This is important because although legislation could be at the national level, but the adaptation of it is from a local level. So it’s important to understand the local disparities that could be with respect to digital access and digital literacy. And this is where I think a lot of cooperation with grassroots youth initiatives would help. Moving forward, the last point, or maybe rather second last if we have time, is that I want to talk about the accountability aspect in the legislation. So when we, you know, working with young people in the last seven years, cyber fraud, radicalization on the internet, misinformation, cyber safety are among some of the concerns that extensively they talk about. So when we are designing these legislations, we have to ensure that the accountability is present in protecting the digital rights of youth. And the last point, not to rush, is to understand the impact of the legislation. This is the impact assessment. The impact studies and how these laws affect young people, their rights, their societies, their access, as well as their opportunities has to be put together to ensure a holistic framework. Thank you.

Keith Andere: So Keewa, youth participation by design, youth engagement by design. Super. Dua, do you wanna?

Duaa Albalawi: Sure thing, thank you so much, Keith. So I really want to start off by saying that from my experience at the Y20 of this year, there is no one and done approach to policymaking, especially when it comes to digital governance, given that technology has been rapidly evolving at an unprecedented rate that none of us has experienced in the past. Now, when it comes to youth, they’re a key stakeholder in this rapid development of technology. And not only should they be involved, but they should be consulted when it comes to steering our policymaking direction. Now, for example, forums like the G20 Youth Summit occur on an annual basis and provide insights on the youth stance globally on very different topics, including digital governance. And if you allow me, I would really like to take this opportunity to highlight two of the youth policies that emerged in the sphere during our negotiations in Brazil this past August. So when it comes to artificial intelligence, and as His Excellency Danza has mentioned, youth are calling on our leaders to build a global ethical taxonomy for the development of AI. And it’s political security and informational implications by creating, one, AI auditing frameworks for fair, accountable, and most importantly, unbiased AI systems. Two, putting measures in place to ensure a fair transition for workers to ensure that no one is going to be left behind. And lastly, putting in place national commissions that analyze the impact of AI and propose national regulatory frameworks. Now, on the other hand, another topic of discussion when it comes to data and privacy, the youth are really calling on leaders to empower citizens when it comes to their relationship to these platforms and the use of their personal. data. Now, this includes developing ethical standards of data management, but most importantly, sovereignty to enable citizens to actively protect their privacy and examine the feasibility of establishing private ownership over each individual’s personal data. Now, when it comes to your question on obstacles of including youth perspectives in digital governance, my answer might be a bit unconventional, but I truly believe one of the biggest obstacles from both sides, the senior stakeholders and the youth, is the gap in communication. From my experience, I’ve observed a very big disconnect in how the youth and members of Parliament and members of government communicate and share these ideas, where youth, and justifiably so, are typically very forthcoming and relentless in their communication, which can be very hard to receive and digest for senior stakeholders. But this is where the responsibility of senior government stakeholders truly lies in mentoring and guiding these passionate youth to polish and fine-tune their demands. Now, I believe our MP, Sahar, has mentioned a few incredible examples of how youth can participate to address some of these key challenges in the digital governance space, so I might not expand too much on that. But another issue that I really wanted to bring to the table is the point on fair compensation for youth participation. Youth participation is not a privilege. It is a God-given right. And youth have incredibly insightful and creative solutions that sometimes are not recognized or compensated for. So I would really like to highlight an approach that emerged from our Y20 deliberations, where youth are calling on leaders to increase and incentivize youth participation in local, regional, and national governments through establishing diverse and, most importantly, paid engagement initiatives, such as youth parliaments and advisory councils, while leveraging and also facilitating maybe public and private partnerships to try and aid this funding and ensure that youth contributions are conserved in their policymaking efforts. Now, of course, I would just like to close on a very positive note and highlight that the session that we’re in today truly showcases a remarkable effort from members of parliament to empower the voices of youth on the global stage, so I just really want to take the opportunity to thank everybody for giving us the stage today. Thank you so much.

Keith Andere: Thank you, Jo. Already we have had very concrete, you know, recommendation and actions and things that are able to move us forward from where we are sitting because somebody was already talking on tokenism, you know, so these are very concrete, you know, actions that you’re already talking to us. So this next session is, for me, what is most exciting because we’ve been doing the talking and they’ve been doing the listening, and so it’s our turn maybe to listen to them, maybe perhaps answer. So we have a few minutes and I want to see how do I balance these few minutes and donate it to the audience in the room. By way of hand, I will invite a round of questions should we have a few which I can see some hands in the room I want to ask that we do the following we just say our name and we go straight to the point if your question can be in 60 characters we will be more happy because that means that more people are going to take the floor oh yes a tweet kind of question of course not the Elon Musk kind of tweet yeah so I see a hand here I see there was a second hand here and there’s a third hand sorry I see three hands okay oh yeah I see this one and then there’s another one okay so we’ll take those forums please say your name and be straight to the point if you have a question to any of the panelists and then we can all answer so that is for you there was second question here

Audience: yes yeah my name is Jose Keja from Ghana African youth IGF first of all I’d like to comment on honorable MPs especially our West African MPs for doing great work in that open door policy but I’d like to ask questions for all the MPs in the room how can we measure that open consultation with the youth? What kind of strategies are in place that can be measured, that can be quantifiable? Thank you very much.

Keith Andere: That is a powerful tweet. We had a question from a gentleman.

Audience: Thank you, Keith. My name is Noa Abdubeki. My question is to MP Sahar. I’m from Egypt as well. I’ve been in this ecosystem, the internet governance system, for a while, but I feel like I grew up watching the parliament plenary sessions on TV, but I feel like as a citizen, I lost connection with the parliament. I was wondering, we have a lot of experts in Egypt in different fields, especially when it comes to tech, but how to build this connection between those experts and the parliament and rebuild this trust and bond against it? I’m Srinath Govindarajan. I’m from India. I’ll keep my question really short. My question across the panel is, is there a cultural resistance for young politicians to be elected in the sense that our voters are less likely to vote for young politicians, and how do we combat that?

Keith Andere: Thank you. We’ll take this first round of questions. Just like the questions, please make your answer suitable.

Sahar Albazar: Okay, so I’m lucky to have two questions here. The first one is about the children and if exposing them on how the parliament works is a violation for childhood. We’re not going to kindergarten. We’re going to the primary age and people in high school. So they are actually in a few years, in two years, will be voting for the parliament. So they need to understand and be more aware. It’s like civic education so that when it’s time to vote, they can understand the process and they vote for the right person. I’m sorry, I didn’t get your name. So thank you for the question. I’m currently actually working on AI governance bill. And we have a lot of Egyptian experts, as you mentioned. And as a parliamentarian, I have to have round tables to discuss. So I always include everyone. It’s inclusive. I have private sector. I have experts. I have international organizations. I have civil society. Everyone should be included. So that’s how we bridge the knowledge and the expertise with the policymaker. So when you produce and introduce a bill, it’s evidence-based. I hope that answers your question.

Keith Andere: Yeah, those are the two questions that were directly to you. I think there was a general question from a comrade from Ghana. that was speaking to all of members of parliament. Honourable speaker, I don’t know whether you want to answer his question. How can we measure open consultation with young people? If there are any strategies.

Dansa Kourouma: That’s why at home, we broadcast parliamentary debates live on social media. Traditionally, the debate was on the radio and TV. But today, in our parliament in Guinea, parliamentary debates in the plenary and in the commission, you can have them on social media. All the social media that you can imagine, you can connect, ask questions. And the other element that seems very important to me is that we need to create opportunities for young people to be represented in parliament. The best way to do that, instead of young people being beneficiaries, they should be actors. That’s why lowering the age of participation of young people in parliament seems to me to be an extremely important opportunity. But there are obstacles. It’s access to funding. The policy, my brother from Ghana, in African countries, is reserved for the rich. So, to say that you are lowering the age of participation of young people and that young people do not have the means to raise questions and campaign, the gap remains. So, in addition to facilitating the access of young people, which is encouraged by the law, we need to set up funding mechanisms to encourage the participation of young people in the decision-making process. The last contribution is on children. In our countries, there is what we call the Parliament of Children. The Parliament of Children, we consult the Parliament of Children in Guinea on all the laws that apply to children. because they are students from 12 to 18 years old who are very bright, who are very critical. So when the Senior Parliament debates on education, on health, we give the floor to the Children’s Parliament, which is represented throughout the country, so that they can give their point of view. Indeed, the involvement of young people as voters is from the age of 18, but it is also necessary to allow a young person of 18 years old who participates in the vote, by choosing, to also be a candidate, because voting is a responsibility. We cannot create a disparity between the participation, the right to vote and the right to be a candidate. So legislation must lead us today to create a harmony between the age of voting and the age of candidacy for elections, in addition to the assistance that can be provided to young people for access to funds. For me, this is extremely important. Because I conclude, technology benefits young people in relation to the political process. You agree with me, in many countries, the Internet has changed the regime. There are bloggers who have changed the course of understanding the history of their country on a political level, thanks to tweets, thanks to videos on YouTube. They have led to the awareness of young people, who make up almost 70% of African populations, to become aware. So it is important that this awareness is well-parameterized, so that it is not used against the stability of our nations. So there is no miracle solution. We must try, by creating all the conditions so that young people can access, and also be safe in relation to information.

Keith Andere: Thank you so much, Honorable Speaker. I see, Tobias, I can now report authoritatively that the room can see you, and they can confirm what I told them earlier. So if you have any additional response, please let me know. I give you a minute.

Tobias Bacherle: First of all, I completely agree with what the honorable colleague just said. In Germany, in certain areas, we have a passive right to vote that’s 16 that goes for the European election and for local elections and in some parts also for state elections and in some local elections, even an active right. So you are able to run when you’re already 16 for local council and that combined with you have councils where young people vote their own councils and have their own budgets in that council. Then I think that gives to a very important part access. And I think access is the most important thing, because knowing in theory whom to write and where to go is great and knowing what hearing to watch and so on. But there is a lot of let’s be honest, a lot of informal ways to reach your parliamentarians, to reach your decision makers, to reach your teams and so on. And to get to know that the best thing is to get involved. And I think to encourage young people in that, it’s incredibly important. And we have in the German Bundestag, we have a children’s commission, a standing committee that’s only focusing and working on topics that concern children. And a colleague of mine that was chairperson of that committee for half a year, it’s always rotating every half a year. And in her six months, she decided to only invite children. So children all over from the country, they’re invited to the German Bundestag to speak there. And I think that was an adaptation of the multistakeholder or is a little adaptation of the multistakeholder process. That is important because long story short, wherever you have an open forum, wherever you have an open process, where people are able to participate when they want. And then on the second step, you reach out to those whom it might concern, who might be willing to actually participate and try to enable them, maybe through some program that gives them funding to travel to wherever you meet and so on, or to have digital formats as well. Thank you for that possibility today, for example. I think to have that kind of connection would be very, very great to see that in more places and see it in more political fields. And I think the IGF is a great opportunity to experience the multistakeholder process, but also to learn from the multistakeholder process. Don’t have closed doors, have as many open doors as possible and have them so wide open that people can actually step in and be willing and feel allowed to speak out. And if young people feel encouraged to do that and get encouraged, and the possibility when it comes to funding as well, because young people we heard that already don’t have that amount of money necessarily, either their parents have or often they don’t. So if we fund them, I think that gives an incredible opportunity to actually get involved and be part of any kind of political process.

Keith Andere: Thank you. It will be unjust to leave you out without a response. I think there was a gentleman’s question that was not responded to. So very quickly, we could respond to that.

Duaa Albalawi: Thank you. Absolutely. Thank you so much, Keith. I think on your question of are voters less likely to vote for young politicians, maybe the response to that is a bit convoluted. But in my opinion, I think a key driver to rallying support as a young politician really lies in the age demographic that you’re targeting. If you’re in a country where the population is mostly represented by youth, then it’s very apparent that youth would like someone from that same demographic to represent them and call for their needs and really address the challenges that they want to bring to the table. However, maybe if you look at countries such as Japan, where most of the demographic is mostly older generations, they might have different considerations and different challenges that need to be kept in mind. But I really think that’s where the youth’s ability to learn and gain credibility and expertise really comes into play because that evens out the playing field. So I hope that answers your question. Maybe I want to move to Ihida and see if she has anything more to say. That’s actually a very good question, and thank you so much for touching on the demographics aspect. But I also feel like in addition to that, there’s a lot of narrative around this, you know, that we have to change. And it’s just not us, but rather it’s so intergenerational that the older generations we expect very strong support in helping us change the direction of this narrative to ensure that people see young people as, which we are, as very skilled, informed and relevant to this generation and the future as well. So a lot of it also relies on narrative. Thank you.

Keith Andere: Thank you so much. So I see we have less than four minutes left. But because we’re all here for tech, I have asked AI how many parliamentarians are in the room, and it says it’s more than those already who are seated here. So I’ve seen a few parliamentarians from AI and senators from national governments and Pan-African and regional parliaments. So I will take the powers, you know, that I have to allow those who are willing one minute, not to make a huge submission like they do in the house, but one minute of intervention. Maybe I’ll give, because I have three minutes, I can give four or 50 seconds each, and then we’ll come to closing. So are there any who want, any takers? So there’s one here, there’s a senator here. See, AI is right. No bias. There’s another senator here. So those are three and we’ll keep it, and four. Okay, so 50 seconds each. If we have a roving mic, please do share to the four honorable members for 50 seconds. Thank you.

Audience: Start counting now. What I’d like to say to the young people, that parliament is a space that has been given a lot of powers to shape everything that happens, literally everything. It decides what education will happen, how health will look like. So young people must know, must become political in order for their issues to be addressed. So if you just abandon it to parliament because it’s an old people’s boring space, that is the reason why you then end up with bad laws. So every young person must be political in order to shape the quality of business that comes out of parliament. I think also I want to encourage the young people. The first time I was elected, I was 26 years old as a senator. I’m serving possibly my second into third term in the Senate of the Republic of Kenya. To build that confidence, be proactive, be conscious of the nation. Just start it from the grassroot where you are, from the village, from the town, from the city, and be part of it. And then finally, we run what we call open governance program. I know you have heard about the OGP, that is where we give what we call legislative integrity, legislative openness, and integrity and transparency. I thank you.

Keith Andere: Thank you, Senator.

Audience: Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Honorable Alha Jimbo from the Gambia and the Pan-African Parliament. What I want to say is exactly what is going on in Guinea, where we have a middle parliament called the National Youth Parliament. We have the same thing in Gambia. It is very good to have, simply because it mirrors the national parliament exactly. Where I sit in parliament in Gambia, that’s the same seat where the young parliamentarian from my constituency also sits. They discuss, they have resolutions, and they have recommendations that they forward to the national parliament. So you see that synergy between the real parliament and the youth parliament. It creates that energy. It actually allows them to see themselves as the future lawmakers of the country. So if you don’t have it, I think it’s good to encourage your parliaments to have such, so that they can see exactly what’s actually happening. You have to be on the table. Don’t allow yourself to be on the menu. Be on the table, know exactly what we are doing, so that when you get there, at any particular time, be it young or old, you are able to do the right things. Thank you. You can see that all the parliamentarians instinctively are standing up to speak. That’s what we do in the parliament. Well, I’m from Nigeria, and I also like to say Nigeria has a youth parliament. Indeed, as I’m a senator, I also have a senator youth that also sits, they also have their own speaker, just like we have the president of the Senate. And second part of it as well, there’s also a gallery that also allows youth to also participate and watch proceedings. And I’m proud to say I started as a student parliamentarian, and I wrote through the ranks, and today I’m a national parliamentarian. The only thing I’d like to emphasize, as we’re emphasizing the responsibility for youth to take more engagement, they must also have responsibility to also maintain the integrity of the country. Countries are not run on social media. Countries also have, I mean, the youth, as they are doing the engagement, as they are on the social media, they must also know that certain things border on national security. So as you want to have more space on the table, that more space on the table also comes with more responsibility. And the conversation will not be complete if you are creating more space on the table without letting them know that being on the table creates responsibility that they also need to be aware of.

Keith Andere: Thank you, honourable members. It seems that you have pressed something because I see two very pressing hands. Maybe they want to challenge that governments are not, you know, run from social media. There was a hand behind there. Is it still up? Yes. So, please make it very short. And then I’ll take the gentleman here.

Audience: Hello? Okay, good afternoon. My name is Matilda Moses Mashauri. Okay, good afternoon. My name is Matilda Moses Mashauri. So my question is, I’ve heard all the explanations. I also want to know what exactly, what strategies we, the youth, should use that will contribute to and lead to the digital transformation journey? What are the key steps and things like that, though? Thank you very much.

Keith Andere: Thank you. There’s a gentleman here. I hope that he will be as brief as the lady behind there.

Audience: Merci beaucoup. Je voudrais faire aussi comme collègue parlementaire. Je suis Alpha Abdoulaye Diallo, je suis président de la commission des affaires économiques et développement durable du Parlement Guénin. Je voudrais féliciter les panélistes et aussi remercier le président du Parlement Guénin pour l’opportunité qu’il nous a offert d’être à ce forum. Une expérience que je voudrais ajouter par rapport aux jeunes, c’est qu’il ne faut pas se limiter seulement au Parlement des jeunes et aux sénateurs jeunes. En République de Guinée, nous avons une expérience, ce qu’on appelle les conseils locaux des jeunes au niveau des communes. Dans les communes rurales et dans les communes urbaines, nous avons installé ce qu’on appelle les conseils locaux des jeunes. Et à partir de déjà au niveau de la commune, ils commencent à apprendre la vie de la cité, c’est-à-dire à participer à la prise de décision dans les communes et dans les quartiers. Et ensuite, ils vont progresser vers le conseil, disons le Parlement des jeunes et les sénateurs de jeunes. Donc je pense que la prise de décision d’abord doit commencer au niveau des communes. Ça permet aux jeunes de se socialiser au niveau de leur quartier, au niveau de leur commune, mais aussi de réduire beaucoup la dépendance vis-à-vis des technologies. Je vous remercie.

Keith Andere: Thank you so much. Can you make it 10 seconds? Okay, 20. 25.

Audience: Thank you, sir. Thank you to everyone. Quickly, you know, the new generation, I believe, they are not like our generation. They were raised with technology. I remember my son, he was two or three years. I’m professor of computer science. He locked my iPhone. I couldn’t open it. Two, three, really. So, whenever we come to them, even when they talk in the same room, as you know, they use, even they don’t talk, they use technology to, right? So, we cannot, my point is, we cannot always say, no, no, we have to guard them, we have to do this. Of course, we have to protect them, help them with laws and regulations, but doesn’t, we should not, they think we are, I’m sorry, we are ignorant in technology. Yeah, really. So, when I talk to my kids, they say, please stay away, you know, we know what we do. So, always you have to be open up, don’t think, okay, they are ignorant, they know nothing about this. They were raised with technology. They know almost everything better than us. So, we need to protect them. We need to help them, educate them, but also, what can I say? We have to be flexible because they will use technology in all aspects of their lives, despite our will.

Keith Andere: Thank you very much. Thank you so much. You know, you mentioned something, and it reminds me of one parent who was talking about how they were monitoring their children’s communication, and this is a Kenyan parent. And so, when they went to WhatsApp, they found that the child was, you know, using French to speak to other people because they’re using chat GPT and conversing in French. So, literally, the parent didn’t know what to do. But in 30 seconds, in the tutable fashion, I would like us to make very powerful closing remarks. If they forgot everything you said, this is your time. Thank you. So, we’ll start to my extreme right.

Sahar Albazar: Well, thank you again. I think I will underscore what Dua’a said, that the participation of young people is not a privilege. And I would add, it’s not a symbolic act. It’s a necessity for sustainable development and sustainable progress. Because whether we engage young people in structured forums or mentorship programs or directly in the policymaking process, they help us in having inclusive policies and bills and secure the innovative process and ideas. Lastly, I want to thank Saudi Shura Council for hosting us and doing great work in organizing this event. And also IGF for putting the effort and giving us the opportunity to be with the youth in the same room, which for us, it’s very energetic and very inspiring. So thank you so much. Thank you, everyone.

Keith Andere: Thank you. You’ve already met my closing remarks, but thank you. Yes.

Ihita Gangavarapu: All right. So I have four points. The first one is that we need to institutionalize youth participation through consultative bodies, structured forums, and mentorship so that we can make informed decisions and impactful decisions alongside all of you. Point two, that there are certain systemic barriers that, for example, around both digital and cultural, that if we can address, we can also participate. Point three, one something that was very important mentioned earlier was that you should treat young people as partners and not beneficiaries when it comes to policymaking. And last, one of the points that I’ve taken from the floor is that we need to be where we want to see a change. So we need to be at the table, and we are working towards it as young people, but we need your support. Thank you.

Duaa Albalawi: I’m going to keep this very short and sweet. I think we live in very strange times, and things are rapidly changing day in and day out. And the youth’s effort is absolutely crucial to building the future that we would like to experience tomorrow. So I guess that’s it. is my message to all the youth here in the room. Stay hungry. Stay passionate. Do not get discouraged. Rome was not built in a day. And it is very important for us to continue this fight towards shaping our own digital future. Thank you so much. Thank you.

Dansa Kourouma: Thank you, Mr. Moderator. I would like to conclude with two words. The first word is participation. And the second is responsibility. Why participation? Because simply bringing a politicized society is not the solution. All citizens are not obliged to be politicized. And an extremely politicized society also has consequences on social and economic progress. No, we need enlightened citizens who participate without complacency. So, the struggle for solutions is the right to petition, a popular veto that allows young people, through a certain number of signatures, to put the Parliament before its responsibilities. Because, Madam, the Parliament must not have a right to live or die over the people. The Parliament represents the people. These actions must be controlled by the citizens. So, I propose to those who do not have the popular veto in their legislation and in their constitution, that citizens, especially young people, must be given the opportunity to gather a certain number of signatures and express their concerns before the Parliament, and that the Parliament be obliged to consider the concerns and proposals of the young people. That is participation. The second element is responsibility. Yes, the Internet, youth were born with the Internet, they grew up with the Internet, but we were not born with responsibility, and we did not grow up with responsibility. Responsibility is acquired by education. So, I plead for a responsible digital education, so that youth can participate and avoid that young people publish on social networks 3D images of a protected military site, with terrorism, with everything that constitutes a threat today to national security.

Keith Andere: Thank you so much, Honourable Speaker, Honourable Tobias, you are the far on my far left. That’s why you’re coming last, not because you’re online.

Tobias Bacherle: No worries. Thank you. Thank you very much. I think, first of all, just see that young people and or it’s their future. It’s our future. Include young people and not as a game, but as people and voters and citizens that speak, think and engage on their own future. And that will be around longer than everyone who is older. And I think that’s important to see and to acknowledge. And the second thing is acknowledge the risks of digital transformation and digital tools. Yes, but embrace the chances, forge them, shape the developments and enable people and young people especially to, well, enable their self-sovereign digital journey and put that in the middle of policymaking. The young people and the people in general, the humans in the middle of our digital policies. I think then we can enable them, as I said, to to make their journey and to engage and to participate.

Keith Andere: Thank you so much, Honourable Tobias. We are three minutes into time. And so as we close, I would like to let the parliamentarians in the room know that a draft, an email has been sent to you that has the draft outcome. Please look at it and give in your comments for the parliamentary track on your emails. We’ll be happy to receive that feedback as early as possible to allow the secretariat and colleagues close on that. Lastly, I just want to thank again, you know, the. Saudi government and all the youth organisers and NADUA was our able coordinator and point person for all the young people from the host government as well as the secretariat. Thank you so much for ensuring that young people have an opportunity to interact with the parliamentarians and of course the parliamentarians, whether it was on your own accord or through the parliament. We hope that we can continue to engage with you. We are inviting you tomorrow at room number six, where the Kenyan delegation will be having a roundtable with members of parliament, so you’re welcome to come. As we close, I was your moderator, Keith Andere, until next time, thank you so much.

Agreement Points

Increase youth participation in politics and policymaking

speakers

Sahar Albazar

Dansa Kourouma

Tobias Bacherle

Ihita Gangavarapu

Duaa Albalawi

arguments

Lower voting and candidacy age to increase youth representation

Create youth parliaments and councils to engage young people

Provide funding and resources to enable youth political participation

Treat youth as partners, not just beneficiaries, in policymaking

Youth participation is a necessity, not a privilege

summary

All speakers agreed on the importance of increasing youth participation in politics and policymaking through various means such as lowering voting ages, creating youth councils, and providing resources for engagement.

Leverage digital tools for youth engagement

speakers

Dansa Kourouma

Tobias Bacherle

arguments

Broadcast parliamentary debates on social media platforms

Use social media and digital tools to engage youth in political communication

summary

Both speakers emphasized the importance of using digital platforms and social media to engage young people in political processes and increase transparency.

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized the importance of protecting digital rights and data privacy for young people and citizens in general.

speakers

Ihita Gangavarapu

Duaa Albalawi

arguments

Ensure accountability in protecting digital rights of youth

Empower citizens to protect their data privacy and ownership

Both speakers stressed the need for educating young people about responsible digital citizenship and the potential national security implications of their online activities.

speakers

Dansa Kourouma

Unknown speaker

arguments

Educate youth on responsible use of technology and social media

Balance digital engagement with awareness of national security concerns

Unexpected Consensus

Recognition of youth expertise in technology

speakers

Dansa Kourouma

Unknown speaker

arguments

Educate youth on responsible use of technology and social media

Recognize youth expertise with technology while still providing guidance

explanation

Despite emphasizing the need for guidance and education, both speakers acknowledged the advanced technological skills of young people, which is somewhat unexpected given the traditional view of older generations as more knowledgeable.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The main areas of agreement centered around increasing youth participation in politics, leveraging digital tools for engagement, protecting digital rights, and balancing technological expertise with responsible use.

Consensus level

There was a high level of consensus among speakers on the importance of youth involvement in political processes and digital governance. This strong agreement suggests a growing recognition of the need to empower young people in shaping their digital future, which could lead to more youth-focused policies and initiatives in digital governance.

Different Viewpoints

Approach to youth engagement in politics

speakers

Sahar Albazar

Dansa Kourouma

arguments

Lower voting and candidacy age to increase youth representation

Create youth parliaments and councils to engage young people

summary

While both speakers advocate for increased youth participation, Albazar focuses on lowering age restrictions for voting and candidacy, while Kourouma emphasizes creating separate youth parliaments and councils.

Unexpected Differences

Approach to youth expertise in technology

speakers

Unknown speaker

Dansa Kourouma

arguments

Recognize youth expertise with technology while still providing guidance

Educate youth on responsible use of technology and social media

explanation

While most speakers emphasized empowering youth through technology, there was an unexpected difference in how youth expertise is viewed. The unknown speaker acknowledges youth’s advanced technological skills, while Kourouma focuses more on the need to educate youth on responsible use, implying a potential gap in their understanding of risks.

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement centered around the specific methods for engaging youth in politics, the balance between leveraging digital tools and ensuring responsible use, and the perception of youth expertise in technology.

difference_level

The level of disagreement among speakers was relatively low, with most differences being in approach rather than fundamental goals. This suggests a general consensus on the importance of youth engagement in digital governance, but varied perspectives on implementation strategies. These differences could lead to a more comprehensive approach if integrated effectively, but may also result in challenges when prioritizing specific policies or initiatives.

Partial Agreements

Both speakers agree on the importance of using digital platforms to engage youth, but Kourouma emphasizes the need for responsible use and education about potential risks, while Bacherle focuses more on leveraging these tools for engagement.

speakers

Tobias Bacherle

Dansa Kourouma

arguments

Use social media and digital tools to engage youth in political communication

Broadcast parliamentary debates on social media platforms

Educate youth on responsible use of technology and social media

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized the importance of protecting digital rights and data privacy for young people and citizens in general.

speakers

Ihita Gangavarapu

Duaa Albalawi

arguments

Ensure accountability in protecting digital rights of youth

Empower citizens to protect their data privacy and ownership

Both speakers stressed the need for educating young people about responsible digital citizenship and the potential national security implications of their online activities.

speakers

Dansa Kourouma

Unknown speaker

arguments

Educate youth on responsible use of technology and social media

Balance digital engagement with awareness of national security concerns

Key Takeaways

Youth participation in politics and policymaking is crucial for sustainable development and progress

Digital governance needs to balance embracing opportunities with addressing risks

There is a need to bridge the gap between youth and policymakers through various engagement mechanisms

Responsible digital citizenship education is important for youth

Resolutions and Action Items

Lower voting and candidacy ages to increase youth political participation

Create youth parliaments and councils at local and national levels

Provide funding and resources to enable youth political engagement

Institutionalize youth consultation in legislative processes

Broadcast parliamentary debates on social media platforms

Develop global ethical framework for AI development and regulation

Empower citizens to protect their data privacy and ownership

Unresolved Issues

How to measure the effectiveness of youth consultation in policymaking

How to address cultural resistance to electing young politicians

How to balance youth digital engagement with national security concerns

Specific mechanisms for compensating youth for their participation and contributions

Suggested Compromises

Treat youth as partners in policymaking while still providing guidance and education on responsible engagement

Embrace youth expertise with technology while still addressing potential risks and teaching responsible use

Balance politicization of youth with focus on creating informed, responsible citizens

Do you agree with me that modernity, the race towards innovation and modernity, cannot be decided by the government alone? It is necessary for parliaments and parliamentarians to be convinced that modernity should not be the antipode of traditional values, of human values.

speaker

Dansa Kourouma

reason

This comment challenges the notion that technological progress should be pursued without consideration for cultural values and human factors. It emphasizes the role of parliaments in balancing innovation with traditional values.

impact

This set the tone for much of the subsequent discussion about the need for responsible governance of technology and AI, considering both progress and human values.

Young people are not only the future but they are our active contributors and in our present time for policies and legislations

speaker

Sahar Albazar

reason

This comment reframes the common perception of youth as solely future leaders, emphasizing their current importance and ability to contribute.

impact

It shifted the conversation towards concrete ways to involve youth in current policy-making, leading to discussion of various youth engagement initiatives.

We grew up with mobile phones, with smartphones, and so on. When I was, I think, 12, the iPhone was introduced. So many things that seem to be a change for all the colleagues, because they witnessed how media and media usage has changed, is for us rather something that we are completely used to

speaker

Tobias Bacherle

reason

This comment highlights the generational divide in understanding and using technology, emphasizing why youth perspectives are crucial in tech policy.

impact

It led to further discussion about the unique insights young people can bring to digital governance and the importance of their involvement.

Youth participation is not a privilege. It is a God-given right. And youth have incredibly insightful and creative solutions that sometimes are not recognized or compensated for.

speaker

Duaa Albalawi

reason

This comment forcefully asserts the importance of youth participation and challenges the notion that it’s optional or a favor to young people.

impact

It sparked discussion about the need for fair compensation and recognition of youth contributions, shifting the conversation towards more concrete ways to empower youth participation.

Countries are not run on social media. Countries also have, I mean, the youth, as they are doing the engagement, as they are on the social media, they must also know that certain things border on national security.

speaker

Unnamed Nigerian Senator

reason

This comment introduces a note of caution about the limits of digital engagement and the responsibilities that come with increased youth participation.

impact

It added complexity to the discussion, balancing enthusiasm for youth involvement with considerations of national security and responsible engagement.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by moving it from general statements about youth importance to more nuanced considerations of how to practically involve youth in governance while balancing concerns like cultural values, security, and responsible use of technology. The discussion evolved to consider both the unique perspectives youth can bring and the responsibilities that come with increased participation. This led to a more comprehensive dialogue about the role of youth in digital governance and policy-making.

How can we measure open consultation with youth?

speaker

Jose Keja from Ghana

explanation

This question addresses the need for quantifiable strategies to assess youth engagement in policy-making processes.

How to build connection between tech experts and the parliament and rebuild trust and bond?

speaker

Noa Abdubeki from Egypt

explanation

This highlights the need to bridge the gap between technical expertise and legislative processes in the digital governance sphere.

Is there a cultural resistance for young politicians to be elected? Are voters less likely to vote for young politicians, and how do we combat that?

speaker

Srinath Govindarajan from India

explanation

This question addresses potential barriers to youth participation in formal political processes and how to overcome them.

What strategies should youth use that will contribute to and lead to the digital transformation journey?

speaker

Matilda Moses Mashauri

explanation

This question seeks practical guidance for youth to actively participate in and shape digital transformation processes.

Summary

This transcript covers the closing session of the 19th Internet Governance Forum (IGF) held in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. The discussion centered on reflecting on the forum’s achievements and outlining future directions for internet governance.

Vint Cerf, chair of the IGF leadership panel, emphasized the need for the IGF to earn permanent status within the UN structure by producing more concrete outputs. He suggested revising key documents and developing metrics to assess internet utility and the implementation of the Global Digital Compact.

Olaf Kolkman from the Internet Society highlighted the importance of multi-stakeholderism in internet governance, praising the IGF’s role in facilitating global discussions and local actions. He stressed the need for an inclusive WSIS review process.

Dr. Angela Sulemana, a medical doctor from Ghana, shared her perspective on the impact of digital technologies in healthcare and emphasized the importance of including diverse voices in shaping the digital future.

Dr. Latifa Al-Abdulkarim outlined five key actions for parliamentarians to take in shaping the digital future, including collaboration, investment in digital capacity, fostering inclusivity, embracing flexibility in lawmaking, and providing oversight.

The discussion also included remarks from Juan Fernández of Cuba, who emphasized the need to address digital inequalities between developed and developing countries. The Norwegian ambassador, Kjersti Tromsdal, invited participants to the next IGF in Oslo in 2025.

The session concluded with a video message from Li Junhua, UN Under-Secretary-General, who reflected on the IGF’s evolution and its alignment with WSIS principles. He emphasized the continued relevance of these principles in addressing current digital challenges and called for ongoing engagement in shaping an inclusive digital future.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– Strengthening the IGF’s status and funding within the UN structure

– Preparing for WSIS+20 review and implementing the Global Digital Compact

– Importance of multi-stakeholderism and inclusive participation in Internet governance

– Addressing the digital divide and ensuring equitable access to technology

– Looking ahead to IGF 2025 in Norway and building on progress made

Overall purpose:

The purpose of this closing session was to reflect on the outcomes of IGF 2024, highlight key takeaways and priorities for the future of Internet governance, and transition to the next IGF in 2025.

Tone:

The overall tone was positive and forward-looking. Speakers expressed gratitude to the hosts and participants, emphasized the importance of collaboration, and conveyed optimism about the future of the IGF and its role in shaping digital policy. There was also a sense of urgency about addressing ongoing challenges and preparing for upcoming milestones like WSIS+20.

Speakers

Speakers from the provided list:

– Chengetai Masango: Moderator/host of the session

– Vint Cerf: Chair of the IGF leadership panel

– Olaf Kolkman: Principal Internet Technology Policy and Advocacy Director at ISOC

– Angela Sulemana: Medical Doctor from the Tamil Teaching Hospital in Ghana

– Latifa Al-Abdulkarim: Member of the Shura Council, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

– Juan Fernández: Senior Advisor, Ministry of Communications of the Republic of Cuba

– Kjersti Tromsdal: Ambassador of the Kingdom of Norway to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

– Li Junhua: Undersecretary General of the Economic and Social Affairs, UNDESA

Additional speakers:

– Mieke Van Heesewijk: Deputy Director of SIDN Funds (mentioned but did not speak)

Revised Summary of the 19th Internet Governance Forum (IGF) Closing Session

The closing session of the 19th Internet Governance Forum (IGF) in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, brought together key figures in internet governance to reflect on the forum’s achievements and chart the course for its future. The discussion centered on several critical themes, including strengthening the IGF’s role, addressing digital inequalities, and navigating the challenges posed by emerging technologies.

Opening Remarks and Video Presentations

The session began with video presentations from the host country and Li Junhua, UN Under-Secretary-General for Economic and Social Affairs. Li Junhua emphasized the continued relevance of WSIS principles in addressing current digital challenges and the importance of considering ethical implications in emerging technologies.

IGF’s Future and Structure

Vint Cerf, chair of the IGF leadership panel, set an ambitious tone for the forum’s future by advocating for permanent status within the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA) structure. This proposal aims to secure more stable funding and enhance the IGF’s influence. Cerf emphasized the need for the IGF to justify this elevated status by producing more concrete outputs from its meetings and activities.

Cerf suggested several improvements for the IGF, including:

1. Revisiting and revising key documents such as ‘The Internet We Want’ to include concrete metrics and milestones

2. Creating a new document titled “The IGF We Need” to outline necessary improvements

3. Developing metrics to assess internet utility and the implementation of the Global Digital Compact

4. Preparing quickly for IGF 2025 in Oslo

Olaf Kolkman from the Internet Society echoed the importance of the IGF as a primary platform for internet governance discussions. He praised the IGF’s role in facilitating global discussions and local actions through national and regional IGFs. Kolkman emphasized the need for self-assessment and continuous improvement of IGF processes to create tangible benefits for all stakeholders.

Multi-stakeholder Approach and Inclusivity

A recurring theme throughout the session was the critical importance of multi-stakeholderism in internet governance. Speakers unanimously agreed on the need for inclusive dialogue and diverse stakeholder involvement in policymaking.

Dr. Angela Sulemana, a medical doctor from Ghana, provided a unique perspective on the impact of digital technologies in healthcare. She shared her personal experience of how digital tools have transformed her medical practice, emphasizing the importance of including health professionals in digital discussions. Dr. Sulemana stressed the need for diverse voices, particularly from young professionals and various sectors, in shaping the digital future.

Dr. Latifa al-Abdul Karim outlined five key actions for parliamentarians to take in shaping the digital future:

1. Collaboration with diverse stakeholders

2. Investment in digital capacity within parliaments

3. Fostering inclusivity in legislative initiatives

4. Embracing flexibility in lawmaking

5. Providing oversight on digital governance issues

She also emphasized the need for policies that protect children, safeguard the environment, and ensure safety as digital citizens.

Digital Inclusion and Development

Addressing the digital divide and ensuring equitable access to technology emerged as a crucial concern. Juan Fernández of Cuba emphasized the need to address digital inequalities between developed and developing countries, calling for increased efforts to maximize the positive impact of the internet in developing nations. He also highlighted the negative impact of unilateral measures that don’t align with the UN Charter on developing countries.

Emerging Technologies and Governance Challenges

The rapid advancement of technology presents new governance challenges that the IGF must address. Dr. Latifa al-Abdul Karim highlighted the need to tackle AI governance challenges and called for the implementation of anticipatory governance to address future technological shifts, including emerging fields like quantum computing and neurocomputing.

Global Digital Cooperation

The implementation of the Global Digital Compact emerged as a key focus area for future IGF efforts. The importance of international cooperation in digital governance was emphasized by several speakers, including Juan Fernández and Kjersti Tromsdal, the Norwegian ambassador.

Looking Ahead to IGF 2025

Kjersti Tromsdal invited participants to the next IGF in Oslo in June 2025, underscoring the continuity of the forum’s work and the ongoing commitment to strengthening diversity and collaboration in digital governance. A video was shown welcoming participants to IGF 2025, and attendees were advised to book hotels early due to limited capacity.

Conclusion

Chengetai Masango provided closing remarks, noting that the Riyadh IGF messages and other outcome documents would be made available on the web. The overall tone of the session was positive and forward-looking, with speakers expressing gratitude to the hosts and participants, emphasizing the importance of collaboration, and conveying optimism about the future of the IGF and its role in shaping digital policy.

Key takeaways include:

1. The push for permanent status for the IGF within the UN structure

2. The need for more concrete outputs from IGF meetings and activities

3. The critical importance of multi-stakeholder collaboration and inclusivity

4. The ongoing priority of digital inclusion and addressing the digital divide

5. The necessity of addressing governance challenges posed by emerging technologies

6. The focus on global digital cooperation and implementation of the Global Digital Compact

As the IGF community looks ahead to the 2025 forum in Oslo and the WSIS+20 review, there is a clear emphasis on translating discussions into actionable outcomes. However, several challenges remain, including specific mechanisms for achieving permanent IGF status within the UN, concrete plans for increasing IGF outputs, detailed strategies for addressing the digital divide, and specific approaches to AI governance and regulation. These areas will likely form the basis for ongoing discussions and work in the lead-up to IGF 2025 and beyond.

Chengetai Masango: So now we come to the last session, which is the closing session of this great IGF. And I’ll just wait until we see our first speaker on the screen. Mr. Vint Cerf, the chair of the leadership panel, is going to be our first speaker. Thank you very much. So I would like to introduce Mr. Vint Cerf, the chair of the IGF leadership panel, who is going to be our first speaker for the closing session. Thank you very much. Vint, please take it away.

Vint Cerf: Thank you so much, Chengetai, and once more, thank you to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia for an extraordinary hosting of this 19th Internet Governance Forum. I’m hearing a little bit of audio showing up unexpectedly. Based on the discussions among the leadership panel, the MAG, and in the IGF 2024 sessions, I conclude that our objective in the WSIS plus 20 should be permanent status for the IGF within the UN DESA structure. I would also include that the main budget for funding be part of the normal UN practice that the secretariat be supported at the $3 million a year level. To earn this outcome, the IGF and the NRIs must put forward plans for more concrete outputs from the annual and the intersessional meetings. We must earn this enhanced status. UNESCO has proposed a revised set of Internet universality indicators, and these measures might be taken through the NRIs and summarized and reported at the annual IGF. We should look for other metrics of Internet utility. across countries and user groups. The Internet We Want document should be revisited and revised to include concrete metrics and milestones for Internet utility. It’s intended to be a living document, adapting to new applications and needs as the Internet and its applications continue to evolve. We could include in this work metrics for assessing the implementations of the Global Digital Compact, highlighting successes and opportunities for improvement. We should consider preparing another living document, which we might title the IGF We Need, to summarize recommendations for changes and improvements in IGF and NRI execution. Annual review of such a document would be beneficial for informing the IGF and NRI organizers of actions that can be taken to facilitate useful outputs from our efforts. We must prepare quickly for IGF 2025 as it takes place in June in Oslo. Our focus should not only be preparation for WSIS Plus 20, but it should get serious attention in the run-up to and during IGF 2025. WSIS Plus 20 is a major opportunity to examine IGF’s purpose and practices that have evolved over the 20 years since 2006. The collective experience of the participants in IGF and the NRIs is deep and broad and needs to be distilled in forms that others can use for action. Finally, we should not imagine that IGFs can solve all problems. We may be able to identify and characterize them and even make recommendations for solutions, but we should work to deliver these observations to other institutions in the global ecosystem that have capacity and authority to address the problems and the opportunities we have identified. Thank you so much, Chengitai, for the opportunity to intervene. Now back to you.

Chengetai Masango: Okay, yes, thank you very much, Vin. Our next speaker is Ms. Micah Van Heusoek, Deputy Director of SIDN Funds. Please come to the stage. All right, we’ll go to our next speaker then. Dr. Angela Suleimani, Medical Doctor from the Tamil Teaching Hospital in Ghana. Okay, this is interesting. Then I would like to call on Mr. Olof Kalkman, Principal Internet Technology Policy and Advocacy Director at ISOC. I might want to use the microphone.

Olaf Kolkman: Thank you. It’s a little bit closer to my mouth. Excellencies, distinguished delegates, my name is Olof Kalkman. I’m Principal at the Internet Society. I’ve been contributing to the development of the Internet for two and a half decades. This Internet Governance Forum takes place during a very particular moment. The ink on the Global Digital Compact has not dried yet. The pencils are being sharpened for the review of the implementation of the outcomes of the World Summit of the Information Society. As you all know, the IGF is the forum that allows relevant voices to share ideas, shape norms, iron out solutions, address concerns, and take approaches that benefit people no matter where they are and who they are. We are happy to see that the Global Digital Compact recognizes the IGF as the primary multi-stakeholder process platform for discussion of Internet governance issues. However, the IGF is not the only thing that the WSIS has established. WSIS, in addition to defining a set of concrete action lines, acknowledges that multi-stakeholderism, a way of collaborative governance, leads to positive and concrete actions. I actually think of this as a flywheel. Good ideas and approaches are tested at the local level, shared at national and regional IGFs, and lead to inspirations and maybe even informal consensus at the global IGF. Then, these global views percolate downwards to the local level, where people apply them locally while thinking globally. The national and regional IGFs are the cogs of this flywheel. They allow good ideas to bubble up from national to regional to global level, and they enable us to act local while thinking global. We have to remember that multi-stakeholderism is more than just talking. It’s about taking responsibility, fulfilling those action lines. And I know that within the technical community, there are many organizations that work passionately towards connecting people to the Internet, either by funding or sharing their knowledge or build capacity in other ways. At the Internet Society, we have empowered communities to get online and grow their digital literacy so they maintain agency in the digital world. Since 2019, we have invested in projects over 120 countries that are delivering on the WSIS Action Lines. We and other technical community organizations help technical and academic communities to organize themselves and build capacity and skills and have agency. In addition, we built new networks that are so much needed to get stuff done. While connecting to the internet, these communities work within their local governments at municipal level, at regional and national level, often with regulators to achieve their goals. We have seen this model produce results, with people now being connected in the highest speaks from the Himalaya to connecting the most underserved students to their schools in Jacksonville, Florida. The model works from the Canadian Arctic to the Colombian jungle. This, my friends, that’s multistakeholderism in action. Various stakeholder groups getting things done, each within their own role, with their own agency, but in collaboration and in coordination. It’s a model that works, and therefore the Internet Society continues to financially and practically support the IGF at all levels. In 2024 alone, we have supported 67 IGFs, schools of internet governance, and supported youth participation, all that with over half a million dollars U.S. currency, simply because we believe this model to be effective. We put our money where our mouth is. But back to this moment, this peculiar moment after the Global Digital Compact and the WSIS review ahead. Remember, the WSIS Review is a review, and we, collectively, should review which additional actions are needed to address the WSIS action lines and achieve the GDC objectives. We must assess how and where we can evolve the existing processes to make them better and understand where we can apply self-learning to create tangible benefits for all. In order to self-learn, we, all stakeholders, need to be part of the self-assessment itself, so that we collectively grow our approach to Internet governance and digital cooperation. That’s why we call on those that will co-facilitate the WSIS process to make the review inclusive and to not mistake multilateralism with multistakeholderism. The Internet is for everyone, and everyone must have a voice in shaping its future. Thank you very much.

Chengetai Masango: Next I would like to call on Dr. Angela Sulumana from the Tamil Teaching Hospital, Ghana.

Angela Sulemana: Assalamu alaikum, bonjour a tous, hola a todos, esteemed delegates, distinguished guests. My name is Dr. Angela Sulumana. at the Thamaly Teaching Hospital in the northern region of Ghana, currently working in the Department of Surgery and I’m part of Ghana SIG. I stand before you today at the closing ceremony of the 19th IGF hosted by the governments of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in Riyadh. I am filled with profound sense of gratitude and emotions, and it’s an honor to address you all as member of the youth cohort in this prestigious gathering. You’re probably wondering what a medical doctor is doing here. I get that a lot. Let me tell you what this means to me. This forum and this secretariat enabled me to, for the very first time, I left my homeland Ghana to be in Addis Ababa for the Africa IGF. What a privilege. Now thinking about my life in Ghana, my hospital, my region, one experience stands out. A 15-year-old patient of mine, after morning reviews, asked, Dr. Angela, could you have me do a TikTok trend with you? Could you do this latest trend with me? I smiled because this patient’s CT scan wasn’t even ready for the electric surgery. But then I thought to myself, I said that, but at least social media at this point is mentally helping her in terms of joy and satisfaction. Though she had an upcoming surgery, but she had the solace in social media, and she was comforted. Maybe if you had AI algorithms that could analyze the MRIs, the CT scans, this could have helped accelerate the process. But reality for some people, it’s a bit tricky here. I’ve come to understand that in building our multistakeholder digital future, we cannot leave the health sector and health professionals out of this conversation. And I’m proud to be part of this forum. I stand before you just not as a delegate from the youth cohort, but as a voice representing the hopes, the aspirations, and the concerns of young people around the world. Over the past few days, we have engaged in meaningful dialogue and shared valuable insights on the present issues of our digital landscape. And we’ve explored topics ranging from AI and trust to human rights and sustainability. Digital is indeed impacting our lives in all fronts. However, as we reflect on our conversations, we must acknowledge the challenges that persist. Many young people still face barriers to accessing Internet, including a lack of infrastructures, affordability, digital literacy. This digital divide is not merely statistics. It represents real lives and missed opportunities. It is imperative that we work together to ensure that the youth have the chance to participate fully in the increasingly digital world. As youth delegates, we are not just passive observers, no. We are active participants in shaping the youth and the future of the Internet. As we close the 19th United Nations Internet Governance Forum, together with my young colleagues and friends, I spend wonderful five days with, and I want to say a big thank you to the governments of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the United Nations, and its IGF Secretariat, organizers, speakers, donors, sponsors, and all participants for cooperating and your support. I will say that as a medical doctor, my work is to save lives. The internet is a life-changing and life-saving tool and the IGF is the operating room where all experts join hands to save our collective future. Thank you Anja, thank you Celine, thank you Fifi, my mentor, for the great opportunity into this year’s Internet Forum and I believe there are more medical professionals who continue to get the opportunity to deliver and enjoy the internet we want in 2025. Happy New Year, As-salamu alaykum, thank you very much.

Chengetai Masango: And next I have the honor to call upon Dr. Latifa al-Abdul Karim, member of the Shura Council, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, who worked tirelessly for our parliamentary track. Thank you very much.

Latifa Al-Abdulkarim: As-salamu alaykum. As-salamu alaykum. Is it working? Perfect. Thanks so much. Excellencies, esteemed parliamentarians, distinguished multi-stakeholders, participants both in person and online, ladies and gentlemen, online, ladies and gentlemen, thank you so much. Thank you for your presence here, thank your insightful questions and your contributions to this important dialogue. These collaborative efforts underscore our central role as digital citizens, we are all at the end digital citizens, and protecting our humanity. in this rapidly evolving digital world. This year has been significant for the IGF parliamentary track in specific with an increased number of parliamentarians actively participating in shaping the various sessions discussions. As we are closing today, I see five actions that parliamentarians should take to shape and impact the digital future by 2025. These actions will definitely will help in paving the way to govern the digital world responsibly, inclusively, and sustainably. Number one, collaborate, collaborate, collaborate. Participate actively in ongoing global discussions about the governance of digital technologies with a human central approach. This is not just only about policy, but also about shaping the future of our digital world. Mark your calendars now. It is not only the global IGF in Norway in June 2025, but the IGF parliamentary track has also introduced good practices to others where they have all invited you to other global events or well-known global events, the AI for Good Summit, the WSIS review meetings, both in July 2025, and the UNESCO Global Forum on AI Ethics, which is going to be in June 2025, so we have a rich summer. Nevertheless, don’t wait to be invited. I highly recommend that the inter-parliamentary union together with the UN to compile a list of relevant global events and training programs to ensure parliamentarians are actively involved in these. conversations. Number two, invest into the future. Build your roadmap to enhance digital capacity and competencies within your Parliament, including capacity of the parliamentarians themselves or the Parliament’s administration team and the institutions of the Parliament. This is not just about training funds. Don’t wait for funds also. It’s about leveraging free resources, promoting knowledge exchanges and creating a culture of continuous learning. Number three, foster inclusivity. The digital world is not just for the tech community. There is always this misunderstanding. Invite parliamentarians from diverse committees to think together. Invite regional and sub-regional parliaments to work together to close this connectivity gap. Open your Parliament doors to stakeholders from academia, from private sector, entrepreneurs, youth and civil societies. Their perspectives are essential in crafting the legislative initiatives. Number four, embrace flexibility, agility, harmonizations and interoperability. Those are the key principles for those innovative regulations to be embedded in our lawmaking processes. Explore opportunities for creating common regulatory frameworks and interoperable legislations that work across national borders. We must work together to close this governance gap this time. Action on AI is needed. not just the AI Act. We must push for policies that encourage brain exchange rather than brain drain. At the same time, we must ensure that our policies protect children, safeguards the environment, and ensure our safety as digital citizens. Access to data must be universal. With data sets available in all languages to promote equity, this is a principle that we should actively advocate for. Implementing anticipatory governance to address the future shifts in technology, including emerging fields like the quantum computing and neurocomputing, to ensure that we are also prepared for the next frontier. Number five, oversight. This is our job. It’s now our responsibility as parliamentarians to work in alignment with executive bodies to prevent any governance gap, whether in AI and data or different sectors, like what we have just heard from the medical fields, ensuring that the digital ecosystem is governed in a way that reflects a global consensus and shared values. And translates, of course, the objectives, principles, and commitment outlines in the Global Digital Compact into practical actions. Finally, I would like to extend my heartfelt congratulations to all those who were involved in organizing this event. Of course, the UN IGF secretariat team. Celine, who was all the time with us, together with Andy from the IBU, and co-organizing the parliamentary track, the Ministry of IT, the Ministry of Communication and IT, and the Digital Governance Government. authority, they were doing all this hard efforts to make sure that everyone is here, welcomed, and feel home, and like making sure that everything is fully occupied for you. And in my final word, I wish the Norwegian Parliament all the best in hosting the next IDF parliamentary track in 2025, and looking forward for your gathering in just six months. Thank you so much, and shukran.

Chengetai Masango: Thank you very much. The next speaker is Mr Juan Fernandez, Senior Advisor, Ministry of Communications of the Republic of Cuba.

Juan Fernandez: I’m going to speak in Spanish, so put your . . . Dear colleagues, I would like to start congratulating the authorities of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the city of Riyadh, and to all the support staff for the successful organization of the 19th edition of the IJF-2024. Since its inception that took place in 2006, this forum has been developed, and it’s not only a yearly event, but it has transformed into a system. that celebrates where national forums and regional forums take place in more than 50 countries and also with activities that take place during the whole year. This amplitude together with its unique feature that the issues that are going to be discussed are decided through consultations on the ground makes that these NRIs and the IGF have become a platform that all the stakeholders can carry on a dialogue concerning policies that are not only important for the Internet governance but also to the digital world. This WESIS, which will celebrate its 20th anniversary next year, established in an unequivocal way the link between information technologies and communications and development. In the first phase of this summit, after tough discussions, the representatives of developing countries managed that the digital branch can be recognized as a new dimension of social activities that limit the access to knowledge and information. This summit allowed this subject to come out of the technical sphere and it will become a political subject that is interesting for the international community. Two decades later, it has been demonstrated that the information technologies and communications in general and Internet in particular essential tools for the development of the countries. It has also been confirmed that this positive impact of the Internet has much less importance in the developing countries than in the developed countries. So we also are using unilateral measures that don’t agree with the United Nations Charter and this don’t allow for the social development of the affected countries and undermine the welfare of its citizens. It is compulsory to eliminate these obstacles and the breaches that are generated by inequality when we talk about access to these technologies, and we have to create the skills that can contribute to the application of human rights, civil, political, economic, cultural, social rights for everyone, and the development and application of emerging technologies can be online with commitments made for sustainable development. This is not enough to implement the 2030 Agenda, it needs the support of concrete actions, access to markets, financing in fair conditions, transfer of technology, and cooperation North-South. The implementation of the recently approved Global Digital Pact gave us an opportunity to advance in this direction and reinforce international cooperation, but we have to try to increase the processes of digital governance. because if we don’t increase them, this will affect especially the developing countries. Dear colleagues, this declaration of principles of the first phase of the WSIS established a common vision of building an information society centered on the human being and targeting the development. Unfortunately, that noble purpose is still only an aspiration for a big part of the humanity. So now we have to make that this common vision becomes a reality, a commission that was conceived 20 years ago. Thank you.

Chengetai Masango: Thank you very much, Juan Fernandez. Next, I have the honor to call from our next host country, Her Excellency, Ms. Kirsty Tromsdale, Ambassador of the Kingdom of Norway to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

Kjersti Tromsdal: Excellencies, Members of Parliament, Distinguished Delegates, Ladies and Gentlemen, We have reached the end of the gathering of IGF 2024 here in Riyadh. I will join the voices of others in thanking the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia for their heartfelt hospitality and for hosting this event so graciously in this magnificent venue. You have been a fantastic host. This IGF has been a great meeting point for interaction between stakeholders in the global Internet community from all over the world. Together, we have truly been building our multi-stakeholder digital future. The vision that has guided IGF 2024. On behalf of the Norwegian government, I wish you all welcome to the next IGF in Norway in June 2025. The forthcoming IGF marks the forum’s 20th anniversary and it will be an important step on the path to the WSIS plus 20 review and the way forward with the Global Digital Compact. On this note, I can tell you that Oslo is a very popular city in the summertime, so we encourage you to book your hotel early. You can already now visit our host country website, IGF2025.no, and make use of the hotel booking facilities there. The Norwegian government wishes to build upon the outcome from this successful IGF here in Riyadh. We believe in an open internet governed through inclusive dialogue where all the stakeholders shape its future. We wish to use the opportunity in Norway to strengthen the dialogue and to secure IGF’s position as the primary global arena for deliberations of internet governance and digital development. I shall not keep you any longer, and I will finish off by showing you a short welcome video for IGF2025, but before I do that, I will conclude by repeating what our state secretary said in his statement in the opening session on Monday. Together we shall strengthen diversity and collaboration through inclusive, multi-stakeholder digital governance, which is crucial for a vibrant and sustainable digital ecosystem. Let’s meet in Norway in June next year for IGF2025 and shape this future together. Thank you. Shukran.

Chengetai Masango: Thank you very much. Our next speaker is a video from the Undersecretary General of the Economic and Social Affairs, UNDESA. That’s the home institution of the IGF, Mr. Li Junhua.

Li Junhua: Excellencies, distinguished delegates, ladies and gentlemen, as we conclude the 19th meeting of the Internet Governance Forum, I extend my heartfelt congratulations to all of you. Thank you for your dedication and collaboration in championing the principles of inclusive and accountable digital governance. On behalf of the United Nations, I extend my profound gratitude to our gracious host, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. By welcoming us to Riyadh, you have marked a historical moment as the IGF is hosted in the Gulf region for the first time. Your leadership and commitment to fostering inclusivity, dialogue, and multi-stakeholder collaboration exemplifies the core values of the IGF. Throughout this week, we explored critical issues under the theme, Building Our Multi-Stakeholder Digital Future. We tackled the challenges and opportunities of the digital age in over 300 sessions. The Riyadh IGF messages reflect the collective wisdom of this forum, distilling the insights and recommendations, and will serve as a guiding light for our shared journey ahead. As we approach the 20-year review of the World Summit on the Information Society, it is evident that the principles established in Geneva and Tunis are as essential today as they were two decades ago. Consider the foundational aspiration articulated in the WSIS Declaration of Principles to build a people-centered, inclusive, and development-oriented information society. This aspiration remains at the heart of our collective efforts. The ethical dimensions of the information society enshrined in the WSIS Principles emphasize respect for peace, equality, solidarity, and human dignity alongside shared responsibility, justice, and protection of fundamental rights. These principles have never been more relevant. Whether confronting the challenges of artificial intelligence, safeguarding human dignity in an increasingly interconnected world, or ensuring privacy and freedom of thought, these principles provide a steadfast ethical foundation. They remind us to take decisive actions against the harmful uses of technology, including discrimination, violence, and exploitation. Over the past 20 years, the IGF has evolved significantly, embracing and upholding these principles. It has grown into a global platform that not only reflects the values of the WSIS, but it also adapts to the rapidly changing digital landscape. Looking ahead, I am confident that the IGF will continue to thrive as a global space, where diverse voices converge to address the emerging challenges and shape a just, inclusive, and sustainable digital future. As we prepare for the next IGF Annual Meeting, let me express my thanks to our next host, the Government of Norway. I urge you to remain engaged actively. The vibrancy and impact of the IGF depend on your ideas, energy, and continued collaboration. Let us also ensure a successful outcome based on the General Assembly’s review of the WSIS and the IGF’s mandate, building on the progress achieved here in Riyadh. In closing, I thank you all for your contributions, your vision, and your unwavering commitment. Let us carry forward the momentum from REACT as we continue to work together to realize a digital future that leaves no one behind. I wish all of you safe travels and a joyful holiday season. To all stakeholders, on-site and online, thank you very much. I look forward to seeing you next year. Thank you.

Chengetai Masango: Thank you very much. We will now have a closing video from the host country.

Video: To those who imagined, invented, and shaped the circle that brought the far close and made the difficult simple, thank you. Johannes Gutenberg for preserving the essence of words and ideas. Thomas Edison for lighting our path and every path beyond. Alexander Graham Bell for giving voice and endless reach. To the visionaries who left indelible marks on even the smallest details of our lives, who simplified the complex and erased boundaries in communication, we owe you an immense gratitude. Thank you to those who shifted the compass of our needs and revolutionized our world. Thank you. Pioneers of the internet and technology. Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Larry Page, Sergey Brin, Raja Perlman, Jimmy Wales. Your contributions reshaped humanity. To everyone who has made life better, who has opened doors to knowledge and made connections seamless, thank you. The list stretches on and it’s far from complete. There will always be more innovators to honor, more creators to thank. For a future filled with possibilities, thank you. Your legacy shapes our future. Innovating together, shaping tomorrow.

Chengetai Masango: Okay, thank you very much. Before we conclude, I just want to point out that the IGF Riyadh messages and also all the other outcome documents, like from the parliamentary track from our dynamic coalitions and best practice documents are available now on the web and coming next week as well we’ll also be making sure that everything else is up on the web. So I wish you safe travels and I wish you also happy holidays. Thank you.

Agreement Points

Importance of IGF as a global platform for Internet governance discussions

Vint Cerf

Olaf Kolkman

Kjersti Tromsdal

Li Junhua

Permanent status for IGF within UN structure

IGF as primary platform for Internet governance discussions

Strengthening IGF’s position as global arena for Internet governance

IGF as platform for multistakeholder dialogue

Multiple speakers emphasized the crucial role of IGF in facilitating global discussions on Internet governance and the need to strengthen its position.

Need for inclusive and multi-stakeholder approach to Internet governance

Olaf Kolkman

Latifa Al-Abdulkarim

Kjersti Tromsdal

Li Junhua

Multistakeholderism as collaborative governance

Need for diverse stakeholder involvement in policymaking

Importance of inclusive dialogue in Internet governance

IGF as platform for multistakeholder dialogue

Speakers agreed on the importance of involving diverse stakeholders in Internet governance discussions and decision-making processes.

Addressing digital divide and promoting inclusive development

Angela Sulemana

Juan Fernández

Li Junhua

Addressing digital divide and barriers to Internet access

Link between ICTs and development

Need for inclusive and development-oriented information society

Multiple speakers highlighted the need to address the digital divide and ensure that ICTs contribute to inclusive development across all regions.

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized the importance of producing tangible results and taking concrete actions through the IGF process, rather than just engaging in dialogue.

Vint Cerf

Olaf Kolkman

Need for concrete outputs from IGF meetings

Multistakeholderism as collaborative governance

Both speakers highlighted the need to address governance challenges related to emerging technologies, particularly AI, with a focus on ethical considerations and human rights.

Latifa Al-Abdulkarim

Li Junhua

Addressing AI governance challenges

Ethical considerations in emerging technologies

Unexpected Consensus

Integration of health sector in digital governance discussions

Angela Sulemana

Latifa Al-Abdulkarim

Addressing digital divide and barriers to Internet access

Need for diverse stakeholder involvement in policymaking

The inclusion of a medical professional’s perspective (Dr. Sulemana) and the emphasis on involving diverse stakeholders (including health professionals) in digital governance discussions represent an unexpected area of consensus, highlighting the growing recognition of the intersection between healthcare and digital technologies.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The speakers generally agreed on the importance of strengthening the IGF’s role, promoting inclusive multi-stakeholder approaches to Internet governance, addressing the digital divide, and considering ethical implications of emerging technologies.

Consensus level

There was a high level of consensus among the speakers on core principles of Internet governance and the role of IGF. This consensus suggests a strong foundation for future collaboration and development of Internet governance frameworks. However, specific implementation strategies and priorities may still require further discussion and negotiation.

Different Viewpoints

Approach to IGF’s future role

Vint Cerf

Olaf Kolkman

Permanent status for IGF within UN structure

IGF as primary platform for Internet governance discussions

While both speakers emphasize the importance of IGF, Cerf advocates for a more formalized role within the UN structure, while Kolkman focuses on IGF’s role as a discussion platform without explicitly mentioning structural changes.

Unexpected Differences

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement revolve around the specific role and structure of the IGF, as well as the approaches to achieving concrete outcomes in Internet governance.

difference_level

The level of disagreement among the speakers is relatively low. Most speakers share similar overarching goals for Internet governance and the IGF, with differences primarily in the specific approaches or areas of emphasis. This suggests a generally aligned vision for the future of Internet governance, which is positive for collaborative efforts moving forward.

Partial Agreements

Both speakers agree on the need for more tangible outcomes from IGF processes, but differ in their approach. Cerf emphasizes concrete outputs from meetings, while Al-Abdulkarim focuses on diverse stakeholder involvement in legislative processes.

Vint Cerf

Latifa Al-Abdulkarim

Need for concrete outputs from IGF meetings

Need for diverse stakeholder involvement in policymaking

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized the importance of producing tangible results and taking concrete actions through the IGF process, rather than just engaging in dialogue.

Vint Cerf

Olaf Kolkman

Need for concrete outputs from IGF meetings

Multistakeholderism as collaborative governance

Both speakers highlighted the need to address governance challenges related to emerging technologies, particularly AI, with a focus on ethical considerations and human rights.

Latifa Al-Abdulkarim

Li Junhua

Addressing AI governance challenges

Ethical considerations in emerging technologies

Key Takeaways

The IGF is seeking permanent status within the UN structure and needs to produce more concrete outputs to justify this

Multistakeholder collaboration is crucial for effective Internet governance

Digital inclusion and addressing the digital divide remain key priorities

Emerging technologies like AI present new governance challenges that need to be addressed

Global digital cooperation and implementation of the Global Digital Compact are important focus areas

The IGF has evolved into a year-round system with national and regional forums playing an important role

There is increased parliamentary participation in the IGF process

Resolutions and Action Items

Prepare quickly for IGF 2025 taking place in June in Oslo

Focus on preparation for WSIS Plus 20 review

Revisit and revise the ‘Internet We Want’ document to include concrete metrics and milestones

Consider preparing a new ‘IGF We Need’ document to summarize recommendations for improvements

Parliamentarians to actively participate in global discussions on digital governance

Enhance digital capacity within parliaments

Foster inclusivity by inviting diverse stakeholders to contribute to legislative initiatives

Implement anticipatory governance to address future technological shifts

Unresolved Issues

Specific mechanisms for achieving permanent IGF status within the UN

Concrete plans for increasing IGF outputs and demonstrating impact

Detailed strategies for addressing the digital divide and ensuring universal Internet access

Specific approaches to AI governance and regulation

Methods for translating Global Digital Compact principles into actionable policies

Suggested Compromises

Balancing the need for concrete IGF outputs with maintaining its role as an open forum for discussion

Combining global principles with local implementation through national and regional IGFs

Integrating diverse stakeholder perspectives in policymaking while maintaining efficient governance processes

Based on the discussions among the leadership panel, the MAG, and in the IGF 2024 sessions, I conclude that our objective in the WSIS plus 20 should be permanent status for the IGF within the UN DESA structure.

speaker

Vint Cerf

reason

This comment sets a clear, ambitious goal for the future of the IGF, suggesting a significant institutional change.

impact

It framed much of the subsequent discussion around the future role and structure of the IGF, particularly in relation to the upcoming WSIS+20 review.

We must prepare quickly for IGF 2025 as it takes place in June in Oslo. Our focus should not only be preparation for WSIS Plus 20, but it should get serious attention in the run-up to and during IGF 2025.

speaker

Vint Cerf

reason

This comment highlights the urgency of preparation and sets a clear agenda for the next IGF meeting.

impact

It shifted the conversation towards concrete next steps and future planning, which was echoed by subsequent speakers.

We are happy to see that the Global Digital Compact recognizes the IGF as the primary multi-stakeholder process platform for discussion of Internet governance issues.

speaker

Olaf Kolkman

reason

This comment underscores the importance of the IGF in the broader context of global digital governance.

impact

It reinforced the significance of the IGF and set the stage for discussions on how to strengthen its role.

We must assess how and where we can evolve the existing processes to make them better and understand where we can apply self-learning to create tangible benefits for all.

speaker

Olaf Kolkman

reason

This comment introduces the idea of continuous improvement and self-assessment in the IGF process.

impact

It encouraged reflection on how to enhance the effectiveness of the IGF, which was picked up in later comments about concrete actions and outputs.

As we close the 19th United Nations Internet Governance Forum, together with my young colleagues and friends, I spend wonderful five days with, and I want to say a big thank you to the governments of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the United Nations, and its IGF Secretariat, organizers, speakers, donors, sponsors, and all participants for cooperating and your support.

speaker

Angela Sulemana

reason

This comment brings a fresh perspective from a young medical professional, highlighting the diverse participation in the IGF.

impact

It broadened the discussion to include the importance of diverse voices and sectors in internet governance, including healthcare.

Implement anticipatory governance to address the future shifts in technology, including emerging fields like the quantum computing and neurocomputing, to ensure that we are also prepared for the next frontier.

speaker

Latifa Al-Abdulkarim

reason

This comment introduces the concept of anticipatory governance and highlights emerging technological frontiers.

impact

It pushed the discussion towards considering future technological developments and how governance should adapt to them.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by setting a clear agenda for the future of the IGF, emphasizing its importance in global digital governance, encouraging self-reflection and improvement, highlighting the need for diverse participation, and pushing for forward-thinking approaches to governance. They collectively moved the conversation from reflecting on the current IGF to actively planning for its future role and structure, particularly in light of the upcoming WSIS+20 review and rapidly evolving technological landscape.

How can the IGF and NRIs put forward plans for more concrete outputs from annual and intersessional meetings?

speaker

Vint Cerf

explanation

This is important to earn enhanced status for the IGF within the UN DESA structure and secure permanent funding.

How can UNESCO’s revised set of Internet universality indicators be implemented and measured through NRIs?

speaker

Vint Cerf

explanation

This could provide valuable metrics for assessing Internet utility across countries and user groups.

How can the ‘Internet We Want’ document be revised to include concrete metrics and milestones for Internet utility?

speaker

Vint Cerf

explanation

This would help track progress and adapt to new applications and needs as the Internet evolves.

How can metrics be developed for assessing the implementation of the Global Digital Compact?

speaker

Vint Cerf

explanation

This would help highlight successes and identify opportunities for improvement in implementing the compact.

How can the IGF community prepare for WSIS Plus 20 and use it as an opportunity to examine IGF’s purpose and practices?

speaker

Vint Cerf

explanation

This is crucial for evaluating and potentially reforming the IGF based on 20 years of experience since 2006.

How can the collective experience of IGF and NRI participants be distilled into actionable forms?

speaker

Vint Cerf

explanation

This would make the insights gained from IGF more useful and applicable for other institutions and stakeholders.

How can the IGF community ensure that the WSIS review process is inclusive and truly multi-stakeholder?

speaker

Olaf Kolkman

explanation

This is important to ensure that all stakeholders have a voice in shaping the future of Internet governance and digital cooperation.

How can parliamentarians build a roadmap to enhance digital capacity and competencies within their parliaments?

speaker

Latifa Al-Abdulkarim

explanation

This is crucial for ensuring that parliamentarians and their staff are equipped to address digital governance issues effectively.

How can parliamentarians create common regulatory frameworks and interoperable legislations that work across national borders?

speaker

Latifa Al-Abdulkarim

explanation

This is important for addressing the governance gap in areas such as AI and ensuring consistent regulation across countries.

How can the positive impact of the Internet be increased in developing countries to match that of developed countries?

speaker

Juan Fernández

explanation

This is crucial for addressing the digital divide and ensuring equitable development through digital technologies.

Summary

This open forum focused on the safety of journalists online, featuring panelists from various regions discussing challenges and potential solutions. The discussion highlighted that journalists worldwide face similar issues, including online harassment, threats, surveillance, and censorship. These problems are particularly acute for women journalists and those from marginalized communities.

Panelists emphasized the need for multi-stakeholder approaches to protect journalists. Key suggestions included implementing stronger legal frameworks, improving platform accountability, providing support systems for victims, and enhancing international collaboration. The importance of digital literacy and ethical reporting was also stressed.

The discussion touched on the evolving definition of journalism in the digital age, with debates around including citizen journalists and content creators in protection measures. Panelists highlighted the role of media organizations in supporting their journalists and the need for better implementation of existing laws.

Positive developments were noted, such as the Council of Europe’s campaign on journalist safety and Switzerland’s National Action Plan. However, participants agreed that more work is needed to raise awareness about the importance of free press in democracies.

The forum concluded with calls for increased trust among stakeholders, better implementation of existing laws, and greater responsibility from tech companies in addressing online attacks against journalists. Overall, the discussion underscored the ongoing challenges in ensuring journalist safety online and the need for continued collaborative efforts to address these issues.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– The increasing threats and harassment faced by journalists online, including gender-based targeting

– The need for better legal protections, implementation of existing laws, and accountability for platforms

– The importance of support systems, training, and resources for journalists facing online attacks

– The role of media organizations in protecting their journalists and promoting ethical reporting

– Defining who qualifies as a journalist in the digital age and whether influencers/citizen journalists should be included

The overall purpose of the discussion was to examine the challenges facing journalists’ safety online and explore potential solutions and ways forward to better protect press freedom and journalists’ ability to do their work.

The tone of the discussion was initially somber when describing the serious threats journalists face, but became more constructive and hopeful as participants shared ideas for solutions and positive initiatives already underway. By the end, there was an emphasis on messages of hope and calls to action for various stakeholders to play their part in improving the situation.

Speakers

– Isabelle Lois: Works for the Swiss Federal Office of Communications on safety of journalists

– Bruna Martins dos Santos: Member of Brazilian Civil Society and MAG member

– Giulia Lucchese: Former secretary of Council of Europe expert committees, currently secretary of expert committee on generative AI and co-secretary of steering committee on media and information society

– Gulalai Khan: Policy communication governance and gender practitioner, teaches internet governance and technology policy at Lahore University of Management Sciences, founder of Pakistan Professional Woman Forum

Additional speakers:

– Jorge Cancio: Online moderator

– Audience member from Tanzania

– Dr. Nermeen Saleem: Audience member, Secretary General of Creators Union of Arab

– Alexander Savnin: Audience member, opposition politician from Russia

– Audience member, senior legal advisor with SEAD Foundation from Iraq

– Jolenta Rose Afanwi: Audience member, journalist from Cameroon Radio and Television

Safety of Journalists Online: Challenges and Solutions

This open forum brought together experts from various regions to discuss the pressing issue of journalists’ safety online. The panel featured Isabelle Lois from the Swiss Federal Office of Communications, Bruna Martins dos Santos from Brazilian Civil Society, Giulia Lucchese, former secretary of Council of Europe expert committees, and Gulalai Khan, a policy communication governance and gender practitioner from Pakistan. The discussion highlighted the global nature of threats faced by journalists and explored potential solutions to protect press freedom in the digital age.

Current Challenges Facing Journalists Online

The panellists unanimously agreed that online harassment of journalists is a widespread and growing problem. Giulia Lucchese emphasised that journalists face routine tracking, harassment, and threats online, with women journalists being especially targeted based on their gender. This sentiment was echoed by Bruna Martins dos Santos, who highlighted the extensive harassment campaigns faced by journalists on social media in Brazil, particularly those reporting on corruption and elections. She provided specific examples, mentioning journalists like Patrícia Campos Melo, Vera Magalhães, and Juliana Daupiva who have faced severe online attacks.

Gulalai Khan provided insight into the evolving landscape of journalism in Pakistan, noting that digital and online journalists played a key role in reporting on the country’s recent election. This shift towards digital journalism has brought new challenges, as traditional media outlets were perceived as less objective, leading to a loss of trust among the public. Khan also highlighted the unique challenges faced by small, independent digital media platforms, which often lack the resources to adequately protect their journalists.

The discussion also touched on the psychological impacts of online harassment on journalists, an issue that remains largely unaddressed. An audience member from Tanzania, Asha, pointed out that many media houses fail to recognise online harassment as a significant challenge, leaving journalists without adequate support.

Potential Solutions and Initiatives

The panellists shared several initiatives and potential solutions to improve the safety of journalists online:

1. Council of Europe Campaign: Giulia Lucchese detailed the Council of Europe’s Europe-wide campaign on the safety of journalists, which is based on four pillars: prevention, protection, prosecution, and promotion of information. The campaign has made significant progress, with 39 appointed national focal points, 23 national committees, and 8 countries implementing national action plans.

2. Swiss National Action Plan: Isabelle Lois presented Switzerland’s National Action Plan for the Safety of Journalists, which includes nine specific measures and four main wishes. The plan focuses on areas such as improving legal protections, enhancing dialogue between stakeholders, and raising public awareness about the importance of press freedom.

3. Platform Accountability: Bruna Martins dos Santos stressed the need for stronger accountability mechanisms for social media platforms, which often serve as the primary venues for harassment campaigns.

4. Legal Protections and Implementation: While many countries have laws protecting journalists, the panellists agreed that better implementation of these existing laws is crucial. Gulalai Khan mentioned Pakistan’s Protection of Journalists and Media Professionals Act 2021 as an example of legal frameworks that exist but require better implementation.

5. Support Systems: The importance of comprehensive support systems for journalists facing harassment was underscored by both Bruna Martins dos Santos and Gulalai Khan. This includes legal protections, organisational backing, and psychological support.

6. Digital Literacy Education: Gulalai Khan emphasised the importance of digital literacy education and curriculum changes to promote responsible online behaviour, potentially reducing instances of harassment.

Role of Different Stakeholders

The discussion highlighted the need for a multi-stakeholder approach to protect journalists effectively:

1. Media Organisations: Gulalai Khan stressed that media organisations should better support their journalists facing online harassment.

2. International Bodies: Bruna Martins dos Santos noted the importance of international collaboration and pressure from bodies like UNESCO, CPJ, and the Inter-American Commission.

3. Human Rights Organisations: The role of human rights organisations in documenting attacks on journalists was highlighted by Bruna Martins dos Santos.

4. Tech Companies: The crucial role of social media companies in addressing online harassment was emphasised, with calls for stronger mechanisms to prevent and respond to abuse targeting journalists.

5. Governments: The need for governmental action, including the implementation of national action plans and better enforcement of existing laws, was a recurring theme.

Emerging Challenges and Debates

The discussion also touched on several emerging challenges and debates in the field of online journalism:

1. Definition of Journalism: There was debate around who qualifies as a journalist in the digital age. Alexander Savnin, an audience member from Russia, questioned the selective protection of journalists, arguing that in less democratic regimes, the definition of a journalist becomes blurred.

2. Role of Influencers: Bruna Martins dos Santos highlighted the dual role of influencers in both perpetrating and combating online attacks, adding complexity to the media landscape.

3. Content Protection: An audience member suggested creating online repositories hosted in Europe for journalists to securely store their work, particularly in countries lacking proper legal frameworks for intellectual property protection.

4. Ethical Reporting: Adnan, an audience member from Iraq, emphasised the need for ethical reporting guidelines, particularly for sensitive topics or vulnerable individuals.

5. Technological Challenges: Giulia Lucchese noted the Council of Europe’s work on AI, including the framework convention on AI and the ongoing examination of generative AI implications for freedom of expression.

6. Psychological Impact: Jolenta Rose Afanwi from Cameroon suggested implementing checkup mechanisms to follow up on the psychological effects of online bullying on journalists.

Conclusion

The discussion underscored the ongoing challenges in ensuring journalist safety online and the need for continued collaborative efforts to address these issues. While positive initiatives like the Council of Europe’s campaign and Switzerland’s National Action Plan offer hope, the panellists agreed that more work is needed to raise awareness about the importance of a free press in democracies. Isabelle Lois mentioned a recent study in Switzerland that showed strong public support for the importance of a free and independent press for democracy.

The forum concluded with calls for increased trust among stakeholders, better implementation of existing laws, and greater responsibility from tech companies in addressing online attacks against journalists. Each panelist offered closing statements that provided a hopeful message for the future of journalist safety online, emphasising the importance of continued collaboration and innovation in addressing these challenges. As the media landscape continues to evolve, protecting journalists’ safety online remains a critical challenge requiring ongoing attention and innovative solutions from all sectors of society.

Isabelle Lois: So thank you all for attending this open forum on safety of journalists online. My name is Isabelle Lewis, and I work for the Swiss Federal Office of Communications. And one of the topics that I work on is the safety of journalists. And we wanted to take the opportunity here at the IGF to exchange on this important topic with the woman present in the room as my panelists and Jorge here, my colleague as well. Let me take a minute to introduce my panel. So we have Bruna on my right side. She is a member of the Brazilian Civil Society. And she’s also a MAG member. And we have on the other side of the room, Gulalai Khan, who is a policy communication governance and gender practitioner. And she teaches internet governance and technology policy at the Lahore University of Management Sciences, which is Pakistan’s first consolidated university level course on the topic. She’s also the founder of Pakistan Professional Woman Forum, which provides mentorship and networking opportunities for professional women in Pakistan. including female journalists. So very relevant for the topic today. And last but certainly not least, we have online Giulia Lucese. She’s the former secretary of the expert committee who was tasked to draft the Council of Europe’s recommendation on countering the use of strategic lawsuits against public participation, and as well the recommendation on combating hate speech. She is currently acting as the secretary of the expert committee on generative AI, implications on freedom of expression, MSI AI, and co-secretary of the steering committee on media and information society, running a Europe-wide campaign for the safety of journalists. So very much an expert on the topic. Welcome to you all. So this session is a moment for us to reflect on the importance of journalism and to share our views on how we can ensure that it can continue to do its important work, especially online. I believe that journalism and media is the fourth pillar of democracies. It helps to keep the public informed and aware of anything important that is happening in our societies. And 2024 has been a very important year on this part. It has been a super election year, as we would call it, with nearly half of the world population voting in their respective countries. And a free press is indispensable in any democracy because it is acting as a watchdog to ensure transparency, accountability, and informed decision-makings. But we have seen more and more problems for journalists with increasingly they’re facing online harassment, threats, surveillance, censorships, and more problems in this sense. So this is a bit the context on which we have planned the session today. It is divided in three parts. So we’re going to start by discussing a bit the problem. And then we’re going to address the potential solutions and a way forward. And then I hope we can have discussions with the people in the room. As you can see, we have an all-female panel. But we have our online moderator, Jorge, who is here to try to balance the gender quota. And so I think, I would hope that we can also take this opportunity to link the gender perspective on these issues. I think it is a very important point to take up. So I hope we can include that. On the technical side, is it possible for maybe us to also be on video for our panelists online? That she can see the room, if it’s possible. Could you please take care of that? I will start with my questions. And my first question is to you, Julia. You have a lot of knowledge with the work you’ve done for the Council of Europe and at the Council of Europe. Could you share some of your perspective on the most pressing issues concerning the safety of journalists online at this moment?

Giulia Lucchese: Yes, good morning, everyone. Can you hear me well? Yes, we can hear you. I do see a little of the room small in the screen. And I’m so sad that I cannot join you in person today. But thank you very much for inviting me on behalf of the Council of Europe. I will be providing an overview of what the organization is working on. And then to start, you did ask me which are the most topical issues at the moment when it comes to the safety of journalists. And I think a very good overview is currently provided by the annual report of the Platform for the Protection of Journalism and the Safety of Journalists. But also from the report on trends in freedom of expression in the Council of Europe member states. Both were published very recently. And very worrisome data do provide this panorama where actually journalists are routinely tracked, harassed and threatened online. and somehow these threats have even been considered some sort of a new normal. So we have some very old kind of threats and issues that actually go hand in hand with even new phenomenon and amongst these I will mention the strategic lawsuits against public participation that we see very well distributed in European member states. These incidents are so common that in several locations they are not even reported which is not just an issue for the journalists but also for the audience, the public at large which risks not being informed, not having access to the information of public interest that it has a right to get to know. And in this scenario women journalists appear to be especially targeted online because of their work but on the basis of their gender. Of course such threats have increasingly a very well an evident chilling effect which causes significant psychological harm but also potentially leads journalists to some sort of a self-censorship. Another issue is that what we have seen is that journalists are also facing including online verbal abuse and smear campaigns by politicians and such attempts by figures in power, figures holding an authority undermine the credibility of journalists themselves, then suffer at least in several countries from low levels of public trust. And in this climate of growing mistrust towards the journalists what happens is then a cycle where the distrust arises and the journalist can even be targeted by physical attacks and very often also online attacks and we have seen these for example. for example, from far-right or far-left groups. Now, I will not get to solutions. I know that you will present the Swiss National Action Plan, but what I want to say is that we are already seeing a change at member states’ level that I hope we will address then later in our conversation.

Isabelle Lois: Thank you so much, Giulia. And yes, I hope that we will be able to address that change in our session, how it continues. And thank you for making us a bit aware of the scene and the most pressing issues. I know that you have more of a European perspective, but I guess these issues are reflected elsewhere. And in that sense, I wanted to turn to you, Gulalai, if you could share maybe a bit of your main points that you see in South Asia, or especially in Pakistan, concerning the safety issues for journalists online. I know that you had an election this year, so maybe you could have some insights on that as well.

Gulalai Khan: Yes, so thank you, Isabel, and thank you for your office for arranging this very important session. I was not very surprised when I heard Julia saying all these things about Europe, because I think it’s across the world, especially with the new media coming in, journalism is under threat, journalists are attacked, and online spaces are becoming very toxic for all professionals, especially journalists. When you talk about elections, yes, this has been a super election, a super election year, and we saw a similar election happening in Pakistan also. But there is a slight shift from how it was reported this time. So most of the traditional media, the trusted big names, they were either on one side or the other. So the objectivity for traditional media was lost, which also meant the trust in them was lost. So digital and online journalists, or online even citizen journalists, were the main… content creators, as I would say, for this election. That’s another story that on the election day, the internet went down and people could not connect, but most of the stories coming out on election day of how well or not well the election went was on online spaces. But the threats remain. Threats on how much you can say, what do you say, and then what are the repercussions for journalists online, especially in a very, very highly polarized society like ours, it was very common that even journalists on online spaces were taking their own sides because either due to safety or some other reasons, which again, it comes down to the fact that then people start asking, who do we trust? Who do we trust for factual news sources? And that has become quite a big issue in a country like ours where the government is struggling with big misinformation and disinformation campaigns, hate speech, a society which is highly polarized. So there is a control that needs to be, or is supported because there has to be legislation on hate speech and all, and there’s an other side where the freedom of expression and people know what’s happening. So this has been one of the biggest challenges this year for us, but I just want to go back a little to 2021, where Pakistan made history by passing two very pivotal rules to support and protect journalists. One was the same protection of journalists and the other was Media Protection Act to 2021. These were legislations which the National Assembly passed and these were approved. The only thing that lacks is, and I talked about right to privacy, right to protection for journalists, even right to sources and protection against harassment. But again, as with all laws and policies, we saw that the implementation has been slow, either due to the lack of resources or other challenges. So this is an area that I think in the. and nationally, everybody has to work together on. Sometimes you have the best laws, but then they’re not implemented. We’re still waiting for a commission for the safety of journalists to be set up. So that’s one of the areas. And one point, Isabel, if you allow me, I know the time is limited, but I really want to talk about this new age journalism, which is now being practiced by small media houses and small independent sources where the digital platforms becoming newsworthy and also the main sources of news for people or the public. And these digital platforms have challenges with financing. They have challenges with also sometimes harassment and content creation, because they don’t have as big as robust teams, but they are doing some incredible work. And that is the kind of work that needs to be promoted because they are not just keeping journalism alive. They’re also keeping the hope alive that our online spaces can be used for constructive purposes. So for right now, this, and then we come to solutions later on.

Isabelle Lois: Thank you so much for also adding a positive spin at the end of this, because I know it can be sometimes a bit depressing when we’re focusing on the issues that we are facing and on the problems that we have. And now I will turn to another region of the world, and I’m happy to have Bruna here who can maybe tell us a bit about the pressing issues in Brazil or in Latin America as a whole. And I’ve heard that there have been some cases of gender-specific targeting or harassment for journalists. Do you think that this is a trend or isolated cases? I would love to hear a bit your opinion on this. Now it’s working.

Bruna Martins dos Santos: Thanks. Thanks for the invite. And thanks also to the Swiss government for organizing this open forum, which I think is one of the very few sessions about human rights on the IGF agenda this year. And I think I’ve been saying this for a couple of years, it’s rather sad that we don’t promote. more and more debates on these topics, as the IGF should be the core space for also discussing human rights aspects. So I will focus a little bit on both places, like Brazil and the region too, but I would like to maybe start by saying that it’s the same, like none of what both Julia and Gulalai said are actually new to us, right? The trends, they repeat themselves, the trends are very much similar between the countries, and it’s really indeed a global trend that journalists, actually no, harassment campaigns have been facilitated in order to shut down journalists, and especially the ones responsible for reporting topics such as corruption, elections, and some of the most urgent or the most divisive topics in this space. When I look to Brazil, I’m happy to come from a country where the rights for a free press is in the constitution, it’s enshrined in the constitution, and we also have a rather positive and progressive legal framework that’s very prone to trying to facilitate and convene a free press and the journalism profession in general, but when I was preparing for this session, three names came to my mind, that are Patrícia Campos Melo, Vera Magalhães, and Juliana Daupiva, three of the Brazilian journalists that were extensively harassed on Twitter during the Bolsonaro government and also during the campaign a couple of years ago. Patrícia is one of the most prominent ones, she was reporting on a lot of the Bolsonaro government wrongdoings, and by doing so she was a victim of misinformation campaigns, and also subjected to a rather big smear campaign featuring sexualized slurs, false allegations about her professional integrity. and the same happened with both Vera and Juliana. Juliana, after this entire period went through, she even launched a book about the Bolsonaro family and she continues to be one of the targets by Brazilian far-rights online. That leads me to maybe the last part of my, this first intervention, is that when we look to Latin America more broadly, journalists are, as I said, the ones reporting on corruption, organized crime, human rights abuses, elections, they tend to be the highest victims of online violence, such as doxing, targeted disinformation campaigns, and attempts of discrediting their work. But this does not just happen with female journalists, but also with the ones from marginalized communities, such as indigenous communities, quilombolas in the case of Brazil, and also the queer community, where they have been great targets in that sense. And last but not least, I think that for some of those cases, and maybe Mexico is a relevant example, but Brazil still is as well, we do still practice, sadly, a fair amount of political and state-sponsored campaigns, where some of the political actors or governments, they have been implicated in orchestrating these online harassment campaigns, and they often employ gender-specific narratives, as in attempts of claiming that this person is not clever enough, that they came from a different place, they were funded by a different kind of political party, and so on, in order to polarize the public opinion, but also to undermine the credibility of all of those journalists. But maybe I’ll stop here, and then we can continue later.

Isabelle Lois: Thank you so much, Bruna, and thank you, all three, to sort of set the scene, and effectively, as I imagine, and as the three of you pointed out, the issues that we’re facing are quite similar in the different regions of the world, and maybe if someone from the audience later would want to share. points on the areas that we have not covered in the missing regions and that would be very interesting to hear. We keep coming back to different contexts but similar similar issues. So in order to not stay in this more sadder part of looking at what is what is wrong or what is not functioning or what could be better, I want to look at what we can do or what we should do. How can we ensure that we have a better protection for journalists online? How can we work with or for media organizations, education institutions, international organizations, states, journalists, I mean all stakeholders that that are active in this area. How can we provide solutions? And I want to give the word first to Giulia who has done a lot of work on this at the Council of Europe and I would love for you to share some of the important work that you have done and maybe some insights that you have gained and that you could share and could be used in different countries or in different areas.

Giulia Lucchese: Yes, thank you. Well I’m really glad to pass to a more positive side of the conversation. So we’re looking into the potential solutions or positive results or what we see advancing. I will again provide a perspective that is that of an international intergovernmental organization. So the first example I can provide which I think it’s already getting a lot of attention and achieving results is that of a campaign, a Europe-wide campaign that was decided to be initiated by the 46 member states of the Council of Europe. It’s a campaign on the safety of journalists which was launched only 14 months ago in October last year and the campaign goal is pretty much translating standards into action and therefore operationalize the good intentions and achieve pragmatic results. How to do this in several different ways. First we have a methodology which is to look into four main pillars of the safety of journalism. and therefore the protection, the prosecution, fighting against impunity, the prevention and the promotion of information education and awareness. Through these four pillars, the goal is to really stimulate the states to do something effective and effectiveness comes from changes in legislation, setting support programs and mechanisms and raising awareness on why it is important to ensure the safety of journalists. It sounds evident, but at so many different levels, it is not. So the most urgent task is of course that to establish effective protections against the physical and online attacks, the misuses of law, the stigmatization and the arbitrary treatment and failures of judicial protection and impunity. Specifically, when it comes to training, the member states should be encouraged to give prominence to the available standards and to educational materials dealing with the issues these address, including gender-specific issues and put forward some tailor-made training for the judiciary, the legal professionals and relevant public authorities, which should take into account the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights, which has a very strong and solid case law on freedom of expression issues, but also taking into account the existing procedural tools, the substantive standards and the core values and deontological rules of the profession of journalists. Then when it comes to resources, what is necessary is to ensure a rapid access to a wide range of different support and protective measures, first and foremost against physical protection. but also the provision of support, for example, by relevant actors such as those allocating adequate resources to provide such support. And in order to be effective in practice, it should be considered that the role that can be played by the specific associations of journalists and also tailor the support to the specific need of the victims of an attack online and offline. This range of measures should also ideally be made available for secondary and indirect victims of attacks online. Now, as I said, we’re looking into promising results. Some are already very clear, but we also see how they greatly are different in practice from a state to the other. So the starting point differs very much. So they’re different in nature, in ambition and degree of development. But what we see is that 14 months after the launch of the campaign, we count today 39 appointed national focal points, 23 national committees and eight countries which are currently implementing national action plans. Amongst these, we count Switzerland, but we also have some other very notable models, such as, for example, the Persweilig project in the Netherlands. The campaign insists that it is necessary to have a multi-stakeholder approach. So here really is the encouragement to set up at the national level these committees. And the reason why, for example, as I said, Persweilig is a leading example in this subject is because it has managed to bring together all the relevant actors, which are, of course, the journalists, but also the national police, the public prosecutor’s office, relevant ministries, association of chief editors and media houses. So all of this conversation together can actually translate in effective change at the national level. I will not continue further, because I know you will provide some insights on what is happening at national level in Switzerland, but I want to maybe leave with a positive note, like much is happening, and we will be able to assess the effectiveness of the measures taken during these years, only in some time from now, the campaign lasts until 2027, and possibly we will look into the legacy of the campaign in the years to come.

Isabelle Lois: Thank you so much, Giulia, for this overview and also these very positive notions of what is happening, what is being done and the will to actually work on this, and I’m happy to, I look forward to in a couple of years to see how this campaign has affected and hopefully helped the situation. I will take this opportunity to share just a little bit about what we have done in Switzerland on this topic. Last year, on the 3rd of May, which is International Press Freedom Day, Switzerland published its National Action Plan for the Safety of Journalists, and just to say a little bit about this action plan, we have nine specific measures that are aimed to raise awareness and focus on prevention, protection and support in cases of violence and threats for journalists, and it also examines the existing legal framework for this protection. So the general aim of this action plan was to put the topic of journalists’ safety in the public agenda, to truly draw attention to the problem that journalists are facing, and to make the society, the politicians at every level aware that there is a central role for the media for a proper functioning of a democracy such as Switzerland. And so this was really the aim of it and every single measure we identified and are trying to put forward goes into this part of putting the topic of journalism in the public agenda. the safety of journalists on the agenda. The four main wishes we have with this national action plan is to one, have a better recognition of the role and the profession of journalists or media actors. We have used the term media actors in the national action plan to have it more than just on the focus of journalists because there are many people involved in this work. The second point is a better protection against online threats and hate speech. The third point is better physical protection. And the fourth is a better understanding of the abusive lawsuits against journalists that are often known as slaps. And this is something where Julia is absolutely an expert. And so these are the four points that we have tried to center our national action plan on. And of course, these points are not specific for online safety, but each measure in its certain way has an online component. We can obviously not talk about harassment without talking about online comments. We can’t talk about lawsuits without the online part of it. So we’re trying to bridge what is happening offline as well as what is happening online. So I won’t go into more detail about this now, but I’m happy to answer any questions that there might be on the different points that we have put in place. And I want to give the microphone to Bruna and maybe she can share what her thoughts on what we can do collectively to promote and improve the safety of journalists online. I know you have a civil society perspective. How can we ensure that all the relevant stakeholders are involved in this discussion?

Bruna Martins dos Santos: Thanks. As we were chatting, I think I was really thinking what’s the role of social media companies in this conversation, right? A lot of these smear slash harassment, gender violence related campaigns, they rely a lot on social media companies and the lack of proper mechanisms either for… quick response either the channels for communicating with the journalists for the cases should be escalated or any other means That users have in general to to you know to complain about this So I see the platform accountability issue as one of the core Aspects of this conversation because we do still need stronger mechanisms to not just detect but also help prevent gendered abuse and hate speech that’s Targeting journalists rights. Nothing of these are no solutions that we can implement whether it’s a strategic litigation or stronger frameworks will work if social media continues to go and Exist as uncontrolled as they have in the last years or if you know Moderate content moderation mechanisms continue to echo hate speech and a lot of those problematic types of speech or tech harms Other than that I would see the role of the judiciary or policy makers in coming up with newer legal protections or new legal frameworks regulatory frameworks to establish enforced laws that can address Specifically online harassment and ensuring that these perpetrators they can face legal action and can face legal consequences in that sense and It’s the sad part about it all is that my country right now is is Reviewing the the civil rights framework for the Internet and we might we might Right arrive in a different stage in the beginning of next year as some of the protections Around the online speech might go elsewhere. But that’s that’s one of the points that I think it’s important to think The last three points would be support systems, right? Above all, it’s really important to have proper mechanisms for the victims the journalists to have some sort of either psychological or legal support to deal with these cases None of these names that I mentioned either Juliana or Vela better or Patricia They would have been able to continue their work if they didn’t have the proper means for for legal protections or anything like that, right? This is an aspect that goes, like online harassment goes beyond just the online world, right, and affects a lot of their ability to speak or to be present in these spaces. So having support systems coming from different stakeholders is really relevant. And last but not least, I would say international collaboration. So efforts by bodies like UNESCO, CPJ, the Committee for the Protection of Journalists, and the Inter-American Commission, or the OHCHR in this case, for the global case, are really crucial in helping pressure governments and also platforms in finding ways to address online violence and finding ways to come up with new mechanisms, either from self-regulatory spaces or statutory regulation aspects. But the goal is that we pressure them in order to come up with newer and improved mechanisms to protect journalists effectively. But I’ll stop here. Thanks, Isabelle.

Isabelle Lois: Thank you, Bruna, for all these points, which are very well taken. I have taken notes on these. These are all important things to include at a national or international level and to think about when we are discussing how we can protect journalists more effectively. Gulalai, I wanted to ask you, could you share a bit how you see the way forward to ensure freedom of expression? What work can be done and maybe should be done on this?

Gulalai Khan: Yeah, so I’d like to take, and you’ve said, on the fact that platforms also need to do some work on this, because we have seen that leading platforms and their owner have actually called out journalists, and that does not help with journalism being respected in online spaces. So probably that is something, since you’ve presented the Swiss plan for journalism, and that is one aspect of that. So I think that platform accountability and also their role, because at the end of the day, all the online. threats harassment happens on these platforms and their algorithms sometimes support them and you know make them more viral for their own self so probably that’s number one. You also talked about the fact that most of the online problems but you need to have stronger analog components for digital dividends so very good that you have all those points especially with the word the media actors that you talked about because we cannot actually in the digital ignore these new content creators who are you can call citizen journalists or people who are but they’re not trained enough so probably you need to train them on fact checking the difference between and the debate around citizen journalism versus the mainstream journalism is that probably the fact checking and the training that goes for you to become a journalist is sometimes weaker in those who are on online spaces so if governments can also support this and civil society together that can be really really helpful you then get more fact-checked and authentic content on online spaces. I also want and of course everybody has talked about how academia civil society and everybody come together to support journalists in the very critical work that they do but so some of the journalists come from the traditional backgrounds and when they have these the online platforms the exposure is little so they need to be trained for those platforms they are there new ways to create content there are new ways to disseminate it and they need to be trained on that so I think capacity building is a very very important part part yes and it also saves them from the harassment and the threats because then they also know because digital security is also a critical part of that training that we are talking about. And last but not the least, I think it’s about time that we have a very feminist and a gender-sensitive approach to all the work that we do. The kind of harassment, the kind of wild women journalists face on these platforms, especially in countries like ours, is, I mean, I can’t even describe it.

Giulia Lucchese: And whether you like her or not, but the rape threats is just the beginning, right? So it’s not easy. And I think that the government need to protect women journalists more. They need to be trained how to protect themselves online. We have seen people self-censor themselves just because they’re afraid of the threats. So probably a very, very robust mechanism to support them. I talked about laws being there. So a stronger implementation of those laws is something that I think is the best way forward. You have the best laws on paper. Let’s implement them.

Isabelle Lois: Thank you. OK, yes. Thank you so much for these very important points. And I think all three of you have raised very important aspects that we need to think about when we’re thinking about protection of journalists. I want to quickly break here and see if there are maybe any questions in the room or online. I see a question in the room. Can we maybe get many questions in the room? Can we maybe get a mic?

Audience: Hello. Thank you. I’ve listened to a lot of conversation. By the way, a wonderful insight. I’ve enjoyed it. My name is Asha from Tanzania. And as much as we’ve talked a lot about multi-stakeholderism as in all, I think we need to identify when you’re looking for solutions, there are solutions. which are immediate, it can be done immediately, and those that can be done long-term. And for me, I feel like it’s always important to identify the kind of solutions that are required, because from all these conversations that we’ve been talking about, we were doing an advocacy on technology-facilitated gender-based violence in Tanzania. We have several learnings, but one relevant to this was that the media houses, first, they don’t identify technology-facilitated gender-based violence as a challenge. And then what does it mean when news is covered in their media houses, professional media houses that has been there forever, they put headlines online that amplify abuse to a woman, especially maybe a political leader, somebody in public, that is one of the challenges. But the second one, which is very saddening, when you are a journalist in a media house and you incur this violence online, they don’t care. You know, we isolate violence as an incident, it is not, because the affection is not, the effect is not only online. You go back home, you’re frustrated, people know you, they’ve seen the violence, it is all, it takes, and it depends. Some are digitally resilient, a week, two weeks, they’ll be fine. Others, it will take three months and the job becomes very hard. So I would really like, from all your work, what is the role of media? Are they really playing that factor? Are they intentionally putting in policies in your countries? I would like to know if it is similar with ours. Thank you. Sorry, I’ve taken some moment.

Isabelle Lois: Thank you for your question. I think it’s very good. Maybe we can do more and then go to some answers. Go ahead.

Audience: Thank you for you all. Allow me, this is just a comment and not a question. I’m Dr. Nermeen Saleem. I’m the Secretary General of Creators Union of Arab. It’s a member in United Nations, a Cossack and Social Council. And I think we have a solution, it’s kind of, we have launched in this IGF a platform called intellectual property verification in the digital area. This is targeted audience for this platform is the creator content on the social media and so on. This platform is like give the creator a priority date of his content. And he go to this platform and make a submission for his content, such as article or videos or audios or photos and so on like this before sharing his content via social media. He will get a QR code with IPV and accepted it depends on its technology on AI checking that this article or photos not have a similarity content in the digital area. And when it’s approved that this is the owner of this content, he has a contract on the blockchain to register this is the owner of this article before sharing via social media. This platform help the creator to protect his content before sharing in the social media. And we have negotiations and conversation with the intellectual property organization specialized around the world and this platform is targeted around the world, not only in just region. So I think if you want to know about this platform, it’s our pleasure to visit our booth to explain the technology of this one and the criteria to register your work. Thank you.

Isabelle Lois: Thank you so much. That is a very interesting project and I hope I think we will. we’ll probably all go to the booth and hear some more about it. Maybe I can take one more question. I have one here. This side maybe. Let’s go there.

Audience: Okay. I have a question. But also, I think you allow me a little comment from Mr. Neuro. So, why we do select a journalist as a special…

Isabelle Lois: Could you just state your name, please? Could you please just state your name?

Audience: Okay. Alexander Savnin. Opposition politician from Russia. So, why do we state that we need to protect journalists selectively? Maybe in you, in Western countries, journalists have some privilege. But if regime is not very well democratic, the only pro-regime journalists stay clearly journalists. If you are a bit of posing, you become instantly politician, journalist, civil society activist, forever else. But, well, we are talking about protection of journalists. Let me give a few examples, because a lot of… I’m not talking about Russia today, so that’s… They are journalists in your definition, but I would not like to talk about them. But we’re talking about Russian opposition journalists. When it was a bit loose regime, people were gathering, were protecting journalists, were protecting their works. But in return, journalists… For example, the case of Ivan Golunov, who was falsely accused on drug distribution for his work by the government, and the whole society, whole politicians, rised up and said, yes, he needs to be freed, the case has been cancelled. But when the same exactly, the same looking false drug distribution accusations appeared towards political activists, journalists said, no, no, no, we have to investigate this, including Ivan Golunov. We have to investigate, maybe they are really drug dealers. So why, my question, why we should select journalists? In modern world, everyone is a blogger, everyone is civil society… be accepted again in the Western world. I think in Brazil, the situation is also moving toward that. Yeah, I understand you are from Switzerland, you are colleagues of Russian Roscom, not Zorza, they are exactly doing the same things. But my question maybe to all panelists and the audience, why are journalists in such a privileged position?

Isabelle Lois: Thank you for that question. I think we have a few more. We will get to your question.

Audience: Thank you. I think my comment is kind of similar to the comment from the madam here. I think the journalists should also be protected from their work being stolen online, especially through social media platforms. And I think it happens everywhere, especially in countries where there is a lack of proper legal framework. So I would be very happy to hear any solution, aside from technical solution that you mentioned, but any solution in terms of policy making anywhere in the world. Thank you.

Isabelle Lois: Thank you so much. And I apologize, I know you’ve been raising your hands on this side of the room for quite a while.

Audience: Thank you so much, everyone. I will try to make it very quick. I wanted to talk about ethical reporting, actually, because a lot of time when we… Okay, sorry. My name is Adnan. I’m senior legal advisor with SEAD Foundation from Iraq. I wanted to talk about ethical reporting, because when we talk about journalist protections, some risks come from how they interact with what they will be reporting online. So my organization as well, we have developed some guidelines and also trained some journalists in my country, how they are reporting women survivors, for example. because they are putting their own life at risk when they disclose information and also others’ life as well. That was just an example. And the other question is, I know that nowadays the online platform made it very easy for everyone to be a journalist and to write, but in the meantime there is no authority journalists actually, because they are like an army and part of the risks comes from them, because they are directed to attack the other journalists. Do you think that we really need to work on solidarity to bring all the journalists and people who write online on those platforms, that we have these ethics that we need to follow instead of working this way? Thank you so much. The briefest comment then I’ll pass on to my friend there. More like if someone’s maintaining a bucket list, you know one of the problems that journalists being persecuted often face, even before an arrest or a case, is digital devices being seized, which leads to a lot of loss of work, loss of employment, sources and there’s, you know, tech savvy journalists now try to create their personal online repositories that are maintained on a server that is not their home country, things like that. But if there can be some investment into this, you know, especially having some online repositories hosted in Europe that, you know, that individual journalists can access, upload their work to ensure that journalists who are persecuted don’t lose all their work immediately. Just a brief. There are, I know, for-profit solutions but, you know, if there can be something more public for this, that’s it. Thank you. Thank you very much for the opportunity. It’s been some beautiful insights. I am called Jolenta Rose Afanwi. I’m a journalist from Cameroon. I work with the Cameroon Radio and Television. a worry, let me just go back with it into my country. We have laws protecting journalists, but which are not effective. And we’ve come to a place in Cameroon where you have it that if a journalist has been bullied online, or any of this is happening online, we just give it that. OK, after two weeks, the information will die down, and maybe the person’s image would be redeemed by itself. But now we don’t have those checkup mechanisms to follow up to ensure that. But how is this person’s psychology playing as far as this bullying and these effects goes with you as an individual, and even with your family? I think, is there a checkup mechanism that can be put in place to ensure that countries actually stay within this line? Because even some of the governments also bring up this bullying on journalists. Thank you.

Isabelle Lois: Thank you so much, all of you, for all of the great questions. I might just turn quickly. Is there any questions online that we should look at? It doesn’t seem to be the case. Now we can try comments and questions, which are very interesting. We just start on one point on the definition of journalists or media professional, because it’s something that we in Switzerland have thought a lot about when we decided to have the National Action if it should be focused exclusively on journalists or a bit broader. And we decided to include in our plan a vision that not the people working the media are more than just a journalist writing or reporting. And it’s also maybe the cameraman and the people who are editing and their media chain. And so this was the vision that we had to enlarge not just journalists, but have all of the media professionals. We did not include in that the content creators on social media, as the Swiss legal system is quite clearly making a distinction of traditional media and non-traditional media, and so to make it fit within our legal system, we had to make that distinction. But we are working on tracking safety in Switzerland for media professionals, and in this study that we are currently doing, the users, or let’s say the citizens journalists, as I was saying, are also included in that study. So we will have hopefully numbers quite soon on how that situation is. This is the answer we found for our country that fits, but of course it is a bigger question on how do you define journalist, who would be included, where do you put the limit, where do you put the line. We would love to know from our panelists, is there someone who wants to answer one of the questions?

Bruna Martins dos Santos: I don’t want to put you on the spot. No, just two things. On the influencers bit, or who is actually part of the media, I do think that for the Brazilian landscape, the role of influencers was really pivotal, right? Because they were also part of the folks that were responsible for the attacks, and responsible for fostering violence against journalists, against female politicians, and they were part of these campaigns, right? Brazil until last year, a year ago, was very much dominated by this kind of speech that came, and it was like a much bigger scheme of things, right? It was the president himself, his sons, their supporters, they were all part of a bigger kind of way, and maybe metal language kind of thing online, that’s where the whole goal was to suppress and cut off all of these people from existing online. So it’s really important to see what could be the role of influencers. because although they might not be seen as traditional media, they can also play this very concerning role in fostering the attacks and so on. My last point was about reporting mechanisms, and I do believe that that’s one of the aspects, right? Normally, when those cases take place and so on, it’s really a role for human rights organizations and human rights defenders to continue raising them, documenting and putting the word forward on what’s the relevance of protecting journalists online. So I do see the work of organizations, let’s say like Reporters Without Borders, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and many others as a core work in the broader protection of not just journalists but activists online, especially in light of those attacks. So just putting these things.

Isabelle Lois: Thank you so much. Giulia , maybe you want to bring a few points here.

Giulia Lucchese: Yes, thank you very much. I really enjoyed listening to both questions and observations. It does provide an idea that this subject is actually so much more articulated than what we would like to think, and it is really important to look at every single perspective and layer also of the issue. Too much has been said, but at least two points I wanted to address. I heard about the concerns related to the challenges arising from the technology developments when it comes to the safety of journalists, but also to the entire media ecosystem. And I think there is an absolute necessity to somehow strengthen the legal frameworks, not only looking into the standards that are already available, but also continue looking, studying, analyzing and understanding the effects of what technology is bringing to the discussion. And this can be risks, this can be potentials, there can be… a lot of there also to ensure a better safety.

Isabelle Lois: I think we have a slight connection issue. Okay, in waiting until Julia gets back online, maybe, Lulay, I’ll let you.

Giulia Lucchese: I think there was a very important point about the role of media organizations to support and to protect their own journalists when they are being harassed. They need to have capacity building programs as well because traditional media houses, they are using digital to earn a lot of money and get relevance back from how irrelevant they became because of the fact that people have… But this is, again, a reason being… And number two, most of these journalists who are part of traditional media houses as journalists, as anchors, or proper journalists, they also have their own social media channels. So sometimes they’re working independently. Not speaking for the entire world, but they’re also working independently of the media houses. So the argument sometimes is that that’s their own channel, so that harassment or that comes from their own work rather than being associated with the media house. However, there are incidences, especially with women journalists, where being associated and even sometimes injured due to the harassment on site, the media houses have not reported it or not dealt with it as they should have been. So yes, that can be a part of it. I don’t know if there is a legal solution to it, but there has to be more pressure groups and more advocacy around it for media houses because they are at the end of the day commercial bodies and they need to be just more supportive of their workers.

Isabelle Lois: Thank you so much, and I think you’re very right that the advocacy is essential. There is a lot of work that needs to be done to make sure that everyone understands the role that media, journalists, or even social media users play in our world. There was a study recently in Switzerland that talked about the perspective of the people on media, and I think about half of the Swiss population believe that it’s essential to have a free and independent press for democracy. But that means that the other half is either not sure or does not believe that. And I think that these numbers are a bit scary to hear, because we’re in a country that is usually seen and I believe very democratic, where there is a lot of work on ensuring that democracy is played out in the best way possible. And so if we in such a country are struggling to see the importance of a strong press, of a press that can talk and deal with the different issues, how does that reflect in maybe other spaces? I think it is an important part on advocacy, which goes beyond the laws and the rules.

Giulia Lucchese: One more point, I think that when we talk about online harassment, of course it begins with a powerful figure just harassing somebody or talking about it. But generally then everybody else joins in. So the general population and citizens, there should be an information literacy or a digital literacy and what the do’s and the don’ts on online platforms is also an important part of work and that can also be included in curriculum. Like I said, I know that the multi-stakeholder approach doesn’t work all the time, but bringing in academia at a certain point is important because it has to go into curriculum on the fact that what abuse online looks like, what abuse does to people online. you know, when you do that, what are the psychological, I mean, it doesn’t just make stronger citizens, but also citizens who are responsible online. So, internet for people who want to be there and not just comment recklessly.

Isabelle Lois: Absolutely. I see that Julia is back online, maybe you can finish the point you were trying to make. Can we unmute her mic? Yes. And put her on the screen. Yes, I think we can hear you, Julia.

Giulia Lucchese: I’m so sorry, I got disconnected, but I’ll be very short. I heard about the technology challenges. I think it’s really important to look into those. It’s issues that are developing daily, we may say, so it’s really important to understand them before making focused proposals. But I’m glad to say that at the Council of Europe level, much is happening. We had a framework convention on AI, which was adopted and opened for signature already this year. We’re currently looking from the freedom of expression side into the implications of generative AI applications for freedom of expression. And then there was another point which concerned more the hateful comments online, but also how the media somehow can even amplify these messages, and therefore I wanted to go back to the recommendation of the Council of Europe on combating hate speech, which in fact addresses the media as specific actors which should take effective measures in order to actually not only prevent, but also encouraging to combat hate speech and to put forward a message that is not an hateful one, while avoiding any stereotypes and hateful narrative. And with this, I close because I see we are really heading towards the end of this very interesting session, and I thank the organisers for inviting the Council of Europe.

Isabelle Lois: Thank you so much, Giulia. and it’s been a pleasure to have you, and it’s always a pleasure to work with you. I will take the opportunity to say that. Yes, indeed, we have, I think, two minutes left, so very little time. I want to thank you all for participating. Maybe we can have one line per speaker to sum up this session, and I would love to continue the conversation at some other point. Bruna, please.

Bruna Martins dos Santos: The same line as before. I would like to see big tech companies owning the responsibility they play in online attacks and NGBV and, you know, attacks against the queer community and journalists in that sense.

Isabelle Lois: Thank you.

Gulalai Khan: I would like to see the laws already being implemented effectively. That will sort out most of our problems, especially on online spaces as well.

Isabelle Lois: Giulia, do you have a last one-liner for us?

Giulia Lucchese: Because we are expressing hopes, I would like to see more trust in the role that every respective actor can play in order to actually reach an effective safeguard of journalist safety.

Isabelle Lois: I really like these last lines being sort of a message of hope, and I will just add that I hope that we can continue having these important conversations and making these spaces available. So thank you all so much for participating. Thank you so much for everyone who asked questions and made comments. This is something that’s very important for us, that the IGF sessions are collaborative. The knowledge is not just with the panel but with everyone in the room, so I’m very happy to have been able to share that with everyone. Thank you.

Agreement Points

Online harassment of journalists is a widespread issue

Giulia Lucchese

Gulalai Khan

Bruna Martins dos Santos

Journalists face routine tracking, harassment and threats online

Digital and online journalists played a key role in reporting on Pakistan’s recent election

Journalists in Brazil face extensive harassment campaigns on social media

All speakers agreed that online harassment of journalists is a significant and widespread problem across different regions.

Women journalists face heightened risks online

Giulia Lucchese

Gulalai Khan

Bruna Martins dos Santos

Women journalists are especially targeted based on their gender

Media organizations should better support their journalists facing online harassment

Journalists in Brazil face extensive harassment campaigns on social media

The speakers concurred that female journalists are particularly vulnerable to gender-based online attacks and harassment.

Need for better implementation and enforcement of existing laws

Gulalai Khan

Bruna Martins dos Santos

Need for better implementation of existing laws protecting journalists

Need for stronger accountability mechanisms for social media platforms

Both speakers emphasized the importance of effectively implementing and enforcing existing laws and mechanisms to protect journalists.

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers stressed the need for comprehensive support systems, including legal and organizational backing, for journalists facing online harassment.

Gulalai Khan

Bruna Martins dos Santos

Importance of support systems and legal protections for journalists facing harassment

Media organizations should better support their journalists facing online harassment

Both speakers highlighted the importance of addressing the role of online actors (general public and influencers) in either perpetuating or combating online harassment of journalists.

Gulalai Khan

Bruna Martins dos Santos

Importance of digital literacy education on responsible online behavior

Role of influencers in both perpetrating and combating online attacks

Unexpected Consensus

Role of non-traditional media actors in journalism

Gulalai Khan

Bruna Martins dos Santos

Isabelle Lois

Digital and online journalists played a key role in reporting on Pakistan’s recent election

Role of influencers in both perpetrating and combating online attacks

Switzerland published a National Action Plan for the Safety of Journalists

There was an unexpected consensus on the importance of recognizing and addressing the role of non-traditional media actors, such as digital journalists and influencers, in the current media landscape. This consensus spans across different regions and contexts, indicating a global shift in understanding the evolving nature of journalism.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The main areas of agreement included the widespread nature of online harassment of journalists, the heightened risks faced by women journalists, the need for better implementation of existing laws, and the importance of comprehensive support systems for journalists. There was also consensus on the evolving nature of journalism and the role of non-traditional media actors.

Consensus level

The level of consensus among the speakers was high, particularly on the core issues facing journalists online. This strong agreement across different regions and contexts underscores the global nature of these challenges and the need for coordinated, multi-stakeholder efforts to address them. The consensus also highlights the urgency of implementing effective measures to protect journalists and preserve press freedom in the digital age.

Different Viewpoints

Definition and scope of journalists to be protected

Isabelle Lois

Alexander Savnin

Switzerland published a National Action Plan for the Safety of Journalists

Why do we state that we need to protect journalists selectively?

While Isabelle Lois presented Switzerland’s National Action Plan focused on protecting traditional journalists and media professionals, Alexander Savnin questioned the selective protection of journalists, arguing that in less democratic regimes, the definition of a journalist becomes blurred.

Unexpected Differences

Role of influencers in online journalism

Bruna Martins dos Santos

Gulalai Khan

Role of influencers in both perpetrating and combating online attacks

Digital and online journalists played a key role in reporting on Pakistan’s recent election

While Santos highlights the dual role of influencers in both perpetrating and combating online attacks, Khan focuses on the positive role of digital and online journalists in election reporting. This unexpected difference in perspective on non-traditional media actors is significant in understanding the evolving landscape of online journalism.

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement revolve around the definition of journalists to be protected, the role of different stakeholders in ensuring journalist safety, and the approach to addressing online harassment and attacks.

difference_level

The level of disagreement among the speakers is relatively low, with most differences stemming from varying regional perspectives and focuses rather than fundamental disagreements. This suggests a general consensus on the importance of protecting journalists online, but with differing emphases on implementation strategies based on local contexts.

Partial Agreements

Both speakers agree on the need for better protection of journalists online, but they focus on different actors: Santos emphasizes the role of social media platforms, while Khan highlights the responsibility of media organizations.

Bruna Martins dos Santos

Gulalai Khan

Need for stronger accountability mechanisms for social media platforms

Media organizations should better support their journalists facing online harassment

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers stressed the need for comprehensive support systems, including legal and organizational backing, for journalists facing online harassment.

Gulalai Khan

Bruna Martins dos Santos

Importance of support systems and legal protections for journalists facing harassment

Media organizations should better support their journalists facing online harassment

Both speakers highlighted the importance of addressing the role of online actors (general public and influencers) in either perpetuating or combating online harassment of journalists.

Gulalai Khan

Bruna Martins dos Santos

Importance of digital literacy education on responsible online behavior

Role of influencers in both perpetrating and combating online attacks

Key Takeaways

Journalists face significant online harassment and threats, with women journalists especially targeted

Digital and online journalists are playing an increasingly important role in reporting, especially in countries with less press freedom

Multi-stakeholder approaches involving governments, media organizations, tech companies, and civil society are needed to improve journalist safety online

Existing laws and protections for journalists need to be better implemented in many countries

New challenges are emerging related to technology, including the role of social media platforms and influencers

Resolutions and Action Items

Council of Europe launched a Europe-wide campaign on safety of journalists

Switzerland published a National Action Plan for the Safety of Journalists

Continued work on understanding and addressing implications of new technologies like AI on freedom of expression

Unresolved Issues

How to effectively hold social media platforms accountable for their role in online harassment

How to define and protect ‘journalists’ in the digital age when many act as independent content creators

How to address the psychological impacts of online harassment on journalists

How to protect journalists’ work and content from being stolen or misused online

Suggested Compromises

Broadening the definition of ‘media professionals’ to include more than just traditional journalists, while still maintaining some distinctions

Balancing the need for content moderation and protection against online harassment with concerns about censorship and freedom of expression

We have seen more and more problems for journalists with increasingly they’re facing online harassment, threats, surveillance, censorships, and more problems in this sense.

speaker

Isabelle Lois

reason

This comment set the stage for the entire discussion by highlighting the growing challenges faced by journalists online.

impact

It framed the conversation around the urgent need to address online threats to journalists and led to a deeper exploration of specific issues in different regions.

When you talk about elections, yes, this has been a super election, a super election year, and we saw a similar election happening in Pakistan also. But there is a slight shift from how it was reported this time. So most of the traditional media, the trusted big names, they were either on one side or the other. So the objectivity for traditional media was lost, which also meant the trust in them was lost.

speaker

Gulalai Khan

reason

This insight highlighted how political polarization is affecting traditional media’s credibility and shifting the landscape of journalism.

impact

It led to a discussion about the rise of digital and citizen journalism, especially during elections, and the challenges this poses for information integrity.

When I look to Brazil, I’m happy to come from a country where the rights for a free press is in the constitution, it’s enshrined in the constitution, and we also have a rather positive and progressive legal framework that’s very prone to trying to facilitate and convene a free press and the journalism profession in general, but when I was preparing for this session, three names came to my mind, that are Patrícia Campos Melo, Vera Magalhães, and Juliana Daupiva, three of the Brazilian journalists that were extensively harassed on Twitter during the Bolsonaro government and also during the campaign a couple of years ago.

speaker

Bruna Martins dos Santos

reason

This comment provided a concrete example of how even in countries with strong legal protections, journalists can face severe online harassment, especially women journalists.

impact

It shifted the discussion towards the gendered nature of online harassment and the gap between legal protections and real-world experiences of journalists.

The campaign insists that it is necessary to have a multi-stakeholder approach. So here really is the encouragement to set up at the national level these committees. And the reason why, for example, as I said, Persweilig is a leading example in this subject is because it has managed to bring together all the relevant actors, which are, of course, the journalists, but also the national police, the public prosecutor’s office, relevant ministries, association of chief editors and media houses.

speaker

Giulia Lucchese

reason

This comment introduced a concrete example of a successful multi-stakeholder approach to protecting journalists, offering a potential model for other countries.

impact

It shifted the conversation from describing problems to discussing potential solutions, emphasizing the importance of collaboration between different sectors.

As we were chatting, I think I was really thinking what’s the role of social media companies in this conversation, right? A lot of these smear slash harassment, gender violence related campaigns, they rely a lot on social media companies and the lack of proper mechanisms either for… quick response either the channels for communicating with the journalists for the cases should be escalated or any other means

speaker

Bruna Martins dos Santos

reason

This comment brought attention to the crucial role of social media companies in addressing online harassment of journalists, a perspective that hadn’t been deeply explored earlier in the discussion.

impact

It led to a broader discussion about platform accountability and the need for stronger mechanisms to prevent and respond to online abuse targeting journalists.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by broadening its scope from a general overview of challenges faced by journalists to a more nuanced exploration of specific issues, regional differences, and potential solutions. They highlighted the complexity of the problem, touching on political polarization, gendered harassment, the changing landscape of journalism, and the role of various stakeholders including governments, civil society, and tech companies. The discussion evolved from identifying problems to proposing multi-faceted solutions, emphasizing the need for collaboration across sectors and borders to effectively protect journalists online.

What is the role of social media companies in addressing online harassment of journalists?

speaker

Bruna Martins dos Santos

explanation

Social media platforms are often the primary venues for harassment campaigns, and stronger mechanisms are needed to detect and prevent abuse targeting journalists.

How can media houses be encouraged to support their journalists who face online harassment?

speaker

Audience member (Asha from Tanzania)

explanation

Many media houses don’t recognize online harassment as a challenge or support their journalists who experience it, which can have significant psychological impacts.

What solutions exist to protect journalists’ work from being stolen and shared on social media platforms?

speaker

Audience member (unnamed)

explanation

This is a particular concern in countries lacking proper legal frameworks to protect intellectual property online.

How can ethical reporting guidelines be developed and implemented, particularly for reporting on sensitive topics or vulnerable individuals?

speaker

Audience member (Adnan from Iraq)

explanation

Ethical reporting practices can help mitigate risks both to journalists and to the subjects of their reporting.

What mechanisms can be put in place to ensure countries follow through on implementing laws protecting journalists?

speaker

Audience member (Jolenta Rose Afanwi from Cameroon)

explanation

Many countries have laws protecting journalists that are not effectively implemented or enforced.

How can secure online repositories be developed to protect journalists’ work in case their devices are seized?

speaker

Audience member (unnamed)

explanation

Journalists facing persecution often lose access to their work when their devices are seized, impacting their ability to continue working.

How can digital and media literacy education be incorporated into curricula to promote responsible online behavior?

speaker

Gulalai Khan

explanation

Educating the general public about online abuse and its impacts could help reduce harassment of journalists and others online.

What are the implications of generative AI for freedom of expression and the safety of journalists?

speaker

Giulia Lucchese

explanation

As AI technology rapidly develops, it’s important to understand its potential impacts on journalism and free expression.

Summary

This discussion focused on the applications and implications of blockchain technology across various sectors, particularly in conjunction with other emerging technologies. The session, part of the Dynamic Coalition on Blockchain Assurance and Standardization at the IGF, featured experts presenting on different aspects of blockchain use.

Malak Trabelsi-Loeb introduced a quantum governance model to address the potential threats quantum computing poses to current blockchain and cryptographic systems. She emphasized the need for adaptable, scalable, and ethical governance frameworks that can proactively manage disruptive technologies.

Heather Leigh Flannery discussed the transformative potential of blockchain and decentralized AI in healthcare and life sciences. She highlighted the possibility of creating equitable, sustainable, and privacy-preserving global health infrastructures, emphasizing the importance of public-private partnerships and evidence-based scaling of solutions.

Dr. Adel Elmessiry presented the Artificial Intelligence Value Protocol, a framework designed to verify and certify AI projects using blockchain technology. This system aims to create a value-based AI marketplace and promote ethical AI use.

Priya Guliani spoke about decentralized identity as a foundation for trust in the digital world. She explained how this approach could empower individuals, enhance security, and address challenges posed by emerging technologies like AI and quantum computing.

The potential of blockchain and other emerging technologies to transform global healthcare was briefly discussed, presenting several projects aimed at improving healthcare accessibility, efficiency, and personalization.

Overall, the discussion highlighted the diverse applications of blockchain technology and its potential to address complex challenges across various sectors, while emphasizing the need for robust governance, standardization, and ethical considerations in its implementation.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– The impact of quantum computing on blockchain and cryptography, and the need for quantum-resistant systems

– The potential of blockchain and decentralized technologies to transform healthcare and enable precision medicine

– The importance of decentralized identity systems for privacy, security and user control

– Using AI, blockchain and other emerging technologies to address global health challenges

– The need for governance frameworks and standards for blockchain and AI implementations

Overall purpose:

The goal of this discussion was to explore how blockchain and other emerging technologies like AI and quantum computing can be applied to create more trustworthy, secure and equitable systems, particularly in areas like healthcare, identity management and governance.

Tone:

The overall tone was optimistic and forward-looking. Speakers were enthusiastic about the potential of these technologies to solve major global challenges, while also acknowledging the need for proper governance and ethical considerations. The tone remained consistently positive and solution-oriented throughout the discussion.

Speakers

Speakers from the provided list:

– Dino Cataldo Dell’Accio: Chief Information Officer of the United Nations Pension Fund

– Malak Trabelsi-Loeb: CEO of Trabelsi-Loeb Legal Consultants, Founder of Vernwell

– Dr. Adel Elmessiry:  Professor, American University in Cairo

– Sari Qasim: Middle East region leader for Government Blockchain Association, Chief Strategy Officer of iBlockchain in Bahrain

– Heather Leigh Flannery: Co-Founder and Chief Executive Officer at AI Mind Systems Foundation

– Priya Guliani: CEO of EarthID, Regional Director of Government Blockchain Association for Europe, Middle East, and Africa

Additional speakers:

– Audience member (unnamed): CEO of Innovation Network Canada

Revised Summary of Blockchain Technology Discussion

This summary outlines a discussion on blockchain technology and its applications across various sectors, particularly in conjunction with other emerging technologies. The session, part of the Dynamic Coalition on Blockchain Assurance and Standardisation at the IGF, featured experts presenting on different aspects of blockchain use, its potential impacts, and the need for governance and standardisation.

Introduction and Context

Dino Cataldo DellAccio, co-leader of the dynamic coalition on blockchain assurance and standardisation, introduced the session and its objectives. He emphasized the importance of developing standards and governance frameworks for blockchain technology to ensure its responsible adoption and implementation across various sectors.

Sari Qasim highlighted that blockchain technology extends beyond cryptocurrency, emphasizing its broader applications and potential impacts across various sectors. He stated, “Blockchain is not only about crypto. It’s about many other things.”

Quantum Computing and Blockchain Security

Malak Trabelsi-Loeb introduced a quantum governance model to address the potential threats quantum computing poses to current blockchain and cryptographic systems. She emphasized the need for adaptable, scalable, and ethical governance frameworks that can proactively manage disruptive technologies. Trabelsi-Loeb argued for the development of quantum-resilient cryptography and governance frameworks, stating, “The quantum governance model, it’s, it’s feasible and actionable framework, it is it is resting on adaptability. So we adapt and we don’t react.”

Blockchain in Healthcare and Life Sciences

Heather Leigh Flannery discussed the transformative potential of blockchain and decentralized AI in healthcare and life sciences. She highlighted the possibility of creating equitable, sustainable, and privacy-preserving global health infrastructures, emphasizing the importance of public-private partnerships and evidence-based scaling of solutions. Flannery painted a visionary picture, stating, “Imagine a world where every individual person on earth was able to engage in an active and dynamic precision health, digital first healthcare and life sciences infrastructure.”

Flannery also discussed the potential for blockchain to enable decentralized clinical trials and research, stating, “We’re able to do decentralized clinical trials, decentralized research, and we’re able to do that in a way that protects privacy.” She emphasized the importance of the blockchain maturity model developed by the Government Blockchain Association and the Blockchain Assurance and Standardisation Dynamic Coalition for realizing this vision.

AI Value Protocol

Dr. Adel Elmessiry presented the Artificial Intelligence Value Protocol, a framework designed to verify and certify AI projects using blockchain technology. This system aims to create a value-based AI marketplace and promote ethical AI use, particularly in healthcare settings. Elmessiry explained, “The protocol addresses the need for discovering, creating immutable records for, and promoting ethical use of the many AI systems being developed.” He highlighted how this protocol could incentivize the development of beneficial AI projects and ensure their proper validation and certification.

Healthcare Without Borders Initiative

An audience member, identified as the CEO of Innovation Network Canada, discussed the potential of blockchain and other emerging technologies to transform global healthcare. They presented several projects aimed at improving healthcare accessibility, efficiency, and personalization, highlighting the potential for AI and blockchain to address global health challenges. The speaker mentioned initiatives such as “Healthcare Without Borders” and specific projects like “Project Nightingale” for sleep apnea detection and “Project Amber” for breast cancer screening using thermal imaging and AI.

Decentralized Identity and Trust

Priya Guliani spoke about decentralized identity as a foundation for trust in the digital world. She explained how this approach could empower individuals, enhance security, and address challenges posed by emerging technologies like AI and quantum computing. Guliani emphasized, “Decentralized identity represents a paradigm shift in the realization of digital human rights as well,” highlighting the potential for blockchain-based identity systems to empower marginalized groups and enhance privacy and security for all users.

Guliani also discussed the concept of “self-sovereign identity” and how blockchain can enable individuals to have greater control over their personal data. She stated, “It’s about giving power back to the individual, allowing them to control their own data and decide who has access to it.”

Conclusion

The discussion showcased the diverse applications of blockchain technology and its potential to address complex challenges across various sectors, while emphasizing the need for robust governance, standardization, and ethical considerations in its implementation. Due to time constraints, the session concluded with a brief acknowledgment of the rich content presented and the potential for further discussions on these topics.

Dino Cataldo DellAccio: you you okay so good afternoon to the audience here in a rehab good morning and good evening for those who are connecting remotely and online welcome to the session of the dynamic coalition on blockchain assurance and standardization my name is Dino DeLattro I’m the chief information officer of the United Nations Pension Fund and here within the IGF I’m co-leading with Gerard Dachet the president of the government blockchain association this dynamic coalition so today I have the privilege to be joined by distinguished subject matter expert that they will be presenting real case and real expertise on specific use cases of blockchain you will hear about blockchain and quantum blockchain artificial intelligence blockchain and digital health blockchain in digital identity I have an on-site moderator as well as an online moderator. We have three speakers on site and two speakers online and I’m now going to pass the floor to them to make a brief introduction about who they are and about who they represent and which field are they working on. We will start with Malak Trabelsi.

Malak Trabelsi-Loeb: Thank you very much. It’s an honor to be here today. My name is Malak Trabelsi-Loeb. I’m the CEO of Trabelsi-Loeb Legal Consultants and the founder of a group of companies, Vernwell, and my practice when it comes to law, it’s related to international business law, space, tech, and national security law. So when we talk about being here and what I’m presenting, it’s related to the blockchain and quantum computing and a governance model which we are proud to present for the first time ever. Thank you.

Dr. Adel El-Mesiri: Good morning, everybody. My name is Dr. Adel El-Mesiri. I have a PhD in machine learning, artificial intelligence, and trust networks, which is blockchain. So my focal point is the use of blockchain and AI, especially in healthcare. I supervise students at the medical group, as I have a bunch of companies, most notably is AlphaFin with Tim Draper and AIVP, which is the AI value protocol and health reasoning, which uses AI in the healthcare sector. I’m more than happy to be here with you. I’m also a member in the GBA and in the coalition. Thank you.

Audience: Hi, everyone. I’m CEO of Innovation Network Canada. I have also worked before as CTO at Deep Tech Canada and led business development at the Quantum Algorithm Institute. I’ve also found SAPIUS, which provides personalized health information system that are sustainable and responsible. And I’m very happy to be here and with you to talk about health care.

Sari Qasim: Thank you. Sari. Yeah. So thank you, Dino. Thank you so much for this introduction. My name is Sari Qasim, and I am from the Government Blockchain Association. I lead the Middle East region, and I’m also the Chief Strategy Officer of iBlockchain in Bahrain. As Mr. Dino alluded about blockchain assurance and standardization dynamic collision, this is quite a very important subject that we make this dynamic collision to make sure that any blockchain projects come on the ground will be trusted by the government and will be a project that people can trust as well. Before I go back to Heather and online, I would like to add one more point about blockchain assurance. Ladies and gentlemen, blockchain is not crypto. This is one point to be cleared for everyone. We are here to talk about blockchain real use cases in a subject to help the people of Earth. And crypto is something different. It’s just a use case. Some of it is good, some of it. But this is just to clear the umbrella that we are working as a dynamic collision here with the United Nations. With that, I go to Heather Flannery, if you would like to introduce yourself, please.

Heather Lee Flannery: Thank you so much. Hello, everyone. My name is Heather Lee Flannery. I am the Co-Founder and Chief Executive Officer at AI Mind Systems Foundation, where we are focused on the convergence of blockchain and Web3, decentralized AI, and privacy enhancing technologies in order to radically empower individuals to participate equitably in the digital world. in a massively AI-driven and digital environment. Our very specific focus is on enabling systems of governance and collaboration that can prioritize underserved and vulnerable populations first and create alternative capital structures and resource distribution models that can address unintended consequences of previous generations of exponential technology. It’s an honor to be here, and it’s also an honor to serve as the chair for the Healthcare and Life Sciences Working Group at the Government Blockchain Association, and to be a member of the IGF Dynamic Coalition for Blockchain Assurance and Standardization. I’m looking forward to this event, and thank you very much for including me.

Sari Qasim: Our honor, our honor, Heather. With that, Goen-Gib, would you like to introduce yourself? Goen-Gib, you are in mute. There you go.

Priya Guliani: Hi, everyone. I’m Priya Guliani, CEO of EarthID, a multi-award-winning decentralized identity platform. At EarthID, we specialize in cutting-edge identity wallets and privacy-preserving verifications. I truly believe in the transformative potential of digital identity, and I’m a really passionate advocate for it. I’m going to be talking more about identity today. I am also the regional director of Government Blockchain Association for Europe, Middle East, and Africa. Absolutely honored and delighted to be here, and looking forward to contributing to this conversation today. Thanks.

Sari Qasim: Thank you so much. Okay, now we will share the presentation, if you please, and we will start with Malek. Malek, if you would like to enrich us.

Malak Trabelsi-Loeb: Hello. Good afternoon again, and I would like to have the slides shared, please. So, today we’re going to, you’re going to dive with me briefly into quantum impact, securing blockchain trust in the quantum era. And I have one question for you. Next slide, please. The question is, what makes you trust? What makes you trust? Trust systems, people, or technology? And this is a question for the audience. Expert opinion. Good one. Should we say it is consistency or reliability or transparency? Maybe all of them. That’s what is blockchain about. So if we move to the next slide, we’re going to see an eye opener. What happens when trust faces its greatest challenge? And this challenge, you could see it if you surf on the internet, what quantum computing poses as threat to our blockchain systems. Are you familiar about quantum computing? Yes? Anyone is a physicist here? Anyone is a computer scientist here? Computer scientist, can you tell us what you know about quantum computing and what threat it can pose to blockchain systems or to cryptography? As we see here, different news papers, clips and other saying, for example, crypto apocalypse soon. Is it soon?

Dr. Adel El-Mesiri: Not really. But you asked about what’s quantum computing and quickly in a nutshell, basically traditional computing depends on. 0 and 1, so it’s a binary state. So in any problem that you need to work with, you have to solve it serially with a 0 and 1. However, in real life, problems have a vast majority between 0 and 1, like infinite number of different states it can be in. That’s what quantum computing is all about. Quantum computing, the state could be in any of those there. And it uses something called qubits. So to bring it all home, when you are trying to solve a problem with traditional computing, you have to go through billions of operations to find the right solution sequentially. However, in quantum computing, you solve the billion computes at the same time, hence the power.

Malak Trabelsi-Loeb: Thank you so much for this. So we’re talking about qubits with quantum computing. We’re talking about different possibilities at the same time, which is different than the computational power that we have today. And the state of quantum computing today is not that what we are waiting for, to have a very cryptographically relevant quantum computing that will break the cryptography that we have today. So we see so many misinformation, disinformation going on. It’s like saying that Google’s quantum computing chips put Bitcoin at risk. And other, they say, there is a possibility of, or Chinese scientists, they broke military-grade cryptography. And it took the internet by storm. But actually, what is true, they did only two bits, and this with D-wave computing for now. And this is a great alarm to say that quantum computing is coming, and we need to be ready for. What is the purpose here? I’m not here to speak about the technology behind quantum computing, because it’s not my field. I have experts that are doing that in Vernoil. And we are working on different activities related to that. And even with the cryptography, and we are researching on the different possibilities on the transition for cryptography, that it is resilient against the risk of quantum computing, which will happen in the future. But what is important today, how to be ready and the governance. Actually, when we talk about governance, and I will take you a little bit back to my expertise, which is related to space law. And my thesis was about the problems is related to international law gaps pertaining space or new space activities. And the problem in that we find out that the current legal systems or the current international law is not appropriately prepared for new space activities and the entrance of commercial space actors into that. And we have big problems with sustainability, we have big problems with environmental issues, and my drive with how can we find a legal system or actually a governance format or system that can regroup all this in one single way or model that can govern disruptions and can govern disruptive technologies. So if we go to the next slide, please. So the thing is like the foundations that we have today, the foundation of our cryptographic systems of internet, the internet of trust that we want to have, and the risk that is going to be coming into the future. So we find that the cryptography with the blockchain is based on SHA-256 for mining, and that is supposed to have a risk with cryptographically. relevant quantum computing which is in the future to be with a timeline of we say 2030-2035 but that it is disrupted will be disrupted by quantum computing and the impact will be huge. Can you imagine that if they say it will be or they predicted it will be around 1 trillion of losses yearly because of probably financial and institutions they will not be ready for this kind of or this disruption that it is in the future. So how can we do this? We’re not going to sit down and say well it’s not going to come soon because actually the migration and working into migrating as per NIST to the quantum relevant cryptography and and it’s it’s it’s not it will not be done overnight. It will need time to do that and actually we have the timelines and we need to follow what’s happening and what is what experts are saying in terms of the migration and all the stock intake of what is in our system in terms of cryptography. So if we go to the next step please. So actually what what is the main point here? We try or we want not try because we will do it and this is a resting on all of us. We will build an internet of trust based on safeguard protect blockchain with quantum resilient systems and the second one is how we can do it because it needs collaboration and the collaboration will be fostering global partnerships for shared innovation. Then how can we adapt? So we need to evolve governance framework for emergent challenges and and this needs education because it’s one of the layering basis in all what we are doing is education and education. It’s involved formal and formal education, awareness of the public, and also formal education and training to this experts who are in into different or coming from different backgrounds. So next one, please. So the quantum governance model, and this is like, like I said, based on my thesis, it was social legal analysis of the existing way how we govern space activities, then being involved in different policymaking with governments and other strategy with with different other governments. And this, I seen that we have our way of making our governance, it’s always static. And it’s, it’s, it’s reactive, it’s not going and taken further in order to make a model, which is proactive. And it’s, it’s, it’s making a preparation for the disruption that is happening. So we have different policy makers, and they are working on AI, we have different policy makers, they are trying to work on on quantum, because it’s a new field. Relatively, you have we have others, they are working on blockchain systems, and so forth. And the idea is, how can we have a governance, a governance model, that it is applicable on all this and use disruptions, because we call these disruptive technologies to use these disruptions to disrupt? How can we do that? And because actually, it’s not easy also to come and say, well, we have a different governance model that it is relaying upon technology itself. So the the quantum governance model, it’s, it’s feasible and actionable framework, it is it is resting on adaptability. So we adapt and we don’t react. And we saw that based on the way how COVID-19 was happening. And we were on on on a shock mode, and we did not know how to utilize the resources that we have very fast in order to be prepared. And the preparation, we saw it. It was relatively good in certain countries. In others, they’re not. So the other point is scalability. So it needs to be scalable. And we need to add different solutions based on different technologies. And we will speak about the technologies in a minute. So also, it is based on ethics at scale. Now we put the ethics at the end. We work on the technology, then the ethic comes later. And ethicists, they come to say that here are, there is red lines and things like that. So this one is ethics is at scale, and I will tell you how. And what is very, very important is what are the technologies, and this model will be done. Can I have the next slide, please? Thank you. So using disruption to govern disruption. It’s that way. And that’s why I told Sari yesterday, I love disruption. Because actually, I find a way in it. So turning disruption into opportunity. And this is how we use disruptive technologies in order to find a solution. So I found that AI can be used for foresight. And it is done, but it’s in silo. Always it’s done in different mode. So predict risks and evaluate governance outcome. And quantum simulations is used to test policies under complex scenario. The other one is blockchain transparency to ensure accountability and collaborative governance. The other one is safe quantum solutions. Of course, it’s like moving into secure systems against quantum threats. And global collaboration platforms. Unite stakeholders for proactive solutions. And we talk about… We talk about… Hello. Yes, and we talk about coalitions. So this is what it is done for. So next slide, please. And the framework in action, how can we do it? Actually, some, she’s crazy, probably. She’s coming with something. Always I come with something new and crazy. I’ve been driving with my entities, the quantum revolution in the region since 2020. And when I brought quantum into the region, they say, she’s crazy. This will never work. There’s no quantum computing relevant. Today, we see nations, how they are moving very, very fast in order who has the supremacy to harness the quantum technologies for their nations because it became a national security prerogative. So how to make this governance model operational? Operational. It’s using governance sandbox, dynamic regulations frameworks based on what I was presenting earlier. Collaborative decision-making platforms and ethical oversight system. And this one is using AI. And I spoke with Dr. Adel earlier and he told me, actually, they work on something like that. So actually, when we look at different entities, they have these in silos. And the point is how to bring these together in one platform. And the other one is empowering stakeholders to lead the future because empowerment is education. It’s also preparing the future generation and digital twin models. So I think I finish. So to finish this one, just to present what we are doing, like I said, been driving the quantum revolution in the area. So from making or creating different opportunities and having the first quantum lab for education in the region, which was at Abu Dhabi University. and we opened that quantum lab. The other one is working on a consortium, which is bringing the main companies worldwide to work on the quantum adoption program, our initiative, and this one we launched challenges in order to create different solution to problems that we have worldwide, not only in the region. And we have also launched the Quantum Innovation Summit, which is not an event, it is a platform that creates partnerships and brought the different stakeholders worldwide. And the next one will be working on policymaking also or proposing policies. Thank you so much.

Dino Cataldo DellAccio: Thank you so much, Heather. Thank you for this really opening eye presentation. I wish your frame of work governance is going to see the light in a higher levels. It’s really promising. And for the audience, if you have any questions, it will be at the end of the session. Now we go next to Priya. Heather, Heather, you have the mic now, if you would like to share the presentation with us.

Heather Lee Flannery: Thank you very much for the introduction. I am not using slides today.

Dino Cataldo DellAccio: Okay, so Priya, you have the slides for?

Priya Guliani: So yes, yeah, I’ll put them up. Just a second.

Dino Cataldo DellAccio: Okay. Heather, you would like also to introduce like two minutes of, yeah, the presentation, but Priya have the presentation. Okay. You can go ahead. So Heather, are you going first?

Priya Guliani: Yeah, Heather will go first.

Dino Cataldo DellAccio: Heather will go first, okay.

Heather Lee Flannery: Okay, so then we can unshare that slide. Thank you, Priya. I am so honored to speak with you today about the subject of healthcare and life sciences and the implications of blockchain and decentralized AI in this field. What I would like to ask you to do or challenge you to do first is to question your predefined notions of the art of the possible. Imagine a world where every individual person on earth was able to engage in an active and dynamic precision health, digital first healthcare and life sciences infrastructure. Imagine if that capability were able to be brought equitably to all people in the world and to be able to be sustainably financed and to operate in an environmentally sustainable manner with transparency, accountability, fairness, safety, and privacy preservation as key principles for those capabilities for all people in the world. That is the reality that is now no longer science fiction, but available to us as humanity if we are able to coordinate our actions effectively. The Sustainable Development Goals 17 dealing with partnerships for the achievement of all of the other goals is the heart of what we can accomplish together by organizing and delivering assurance and trust to incorporate blockchain infrastructures, blockchain applications, and the principles of what is referred to as Web3 that empower the sovereignty, agency, dignity, and privacy of all people. The ability to organize public-private partnerships, which are the part of SDG 17 is the single largest breakthrough that could have an exponential force multiplying effect across all global efforts for SDGs 1 through 16. There have been significant pieces of progress on SDG 17. We have seen improved allocation of capital into emerging economies. We have seen advancements in private sector participation, including in global health scenarios. But we have had major blockers to the actual affecting of operational public-private partnerships. What we have managed to do so far is to improve the execution and build capacity for individual siloed attempts, each with their own capital flows, their own allocation of resources. We have the opportunity to move those individual siloed activities occurring in jurisdictions all around the world and introduce the creation of timelines while improving data integrity and scientific integrity through the incorporation of blockchain and web3 technologies and the exponential technologies with which it is converging, including ethical and responsible decentralized AI and the use of extensive and advanced privacy enhancing technologies to protect the agency and dignity of all people. We believe, and I believe in my work, that blockchain technologies must be the foundation of the envisioned public-private partnerships to move those to collective action that can span multiple jurisdictions with jurisdiction-specific compliance and cultural sensitivity. We have major opportunities that are enabled by blockchain, such as the advancement of precision health, including precision population health, using digital twins, the combination of personal AI agents that can be trustworthy and incorporate proof of humanity, all the way to the ability to identify, verify, and authenticate every single data-driven transaction that happens in a massively n-dimensional, multifactorial, multi-party computing environment. Until we are able to collaboratively compute across the many sectors and stakeholders involved in fulfilling public-private partnerships for global health and social services and health equity aims, we will not be able to have capital-efficient, transparent, and globally scalable outcomes. We have the radical potential to decentralize clinical research, driving diversity and inclusion in research subjects, the field of decentralized science, meeting decentralized finance, meeting decentralized physical infrastructure, and those, that capabilities stack being brought into public and private partnerships is extremely powerful. And then the capability to network access to public health, protected health information, including very, very sensitive information, such as genomic data, biometric data, in a way that does not require that data to be moved, exposed, centralized, taken out of the boundary from within which it was organized. This means that in these new infrastructures, we can have completely cryptographic. verifiable, real-world, real-time evidence so that humanity can address our emergencies, our inequities, and realize our vision of faster miracles for all people who are currently suffering from many, many diseases and many profound health disparities. The Government Blockchain Association and the Blockchain Assurance and Standardization Dynamic Coalition’s blockchain maturity model is absolutely fundamental to realizing this vision. While the adoption of blockchain and Web3 technologies, primitives, ethics is necessary, it is not sufficient. Simply utilizing those technologies generally, absent any system that the world can trust about the degree of trustworthiness, legitimacy, technological and operational and governance fairness is a non-starter. So, our work in this dynamic coalition is to not only drive to practical real-world adoption, but to do so within systems of assurance, trust, and standardization that can annul an exponential scaling effect to occur, not at the end of our lifetimes or in generations to follow, but in the next five years. The, we have a remarkable opportunity here to move from processes of stakeholder engagement and consensus building, which is very important, into the resource allocation of large-scale transnational public-private partnerships that will execute pilot programs. An important element of this is not simply to operationalize the use of these technologies, it is also critical to select those technologies. technologies that have been through the blockchain maturity model assessment process, and that will enable all of us to fund parallel, rigorous scientific research, not only technical validation, but clinical validation is absolutely necessary that we can demonstrate the population health and health equity and other endpoints that are so vital to the future of humanity. Those that scientific research needs to have an assertive and continuous publication of peer reviewed evidence. And we have a tremendous opportunity to move from to move from, let’s say an advocacy basis for the adoption of technology to instead a translational mindset for evidence based policy and evidence based scaling of solutions. Together working in this dynamic coalition, we can form the capital structure, the transparent governance processes to bring SDG 17 to a full state of revitalization and a realization of the true intent of active collaboration using collaborative governance technology that can only be brought about. So with that, I thank you very much and thank you to consider supporting moving to production and funding the research necessary to do this in an evidence based way. Thank you.

Dino Cataldo DellAccio: Thank you. Amazing, amazing insights from Heather from the United States, really a very good points that lighting our day. Before going to Priya, I would like to go to Adil for his presentation as the order. So if you would like, please control to have the presentation back for Dr. Adil.

Dr. Adel El-Mesiri: Yes, thank you very much. get the clicker and one advantage of Speaking a lot is knowing how to condense your talk. So I’m gonna try to do it in less than 10 minutes So that to wake you up So I am also not only a member of the GBE but I’m also board member in the Nashville Entrepreneur Center 14,000 entrepreneurs 400 million in revenue that went through and And one thing that I learned out of those is the creating the community the value of creating a vibrant community That allows you to work together. So today I’m going to present to you a framework that allows us not only to Help usher a new age in AI But also how do we could the need govern and work through it in a manner that is actual set and actual Applicable systems, so If you can how do you go back How’d you go back Okay, perfect so You have to ask yourself with every new technology Yeah, I am with every new technology. You have to ask yourself How With every new technology you have to ask yourself, where is the value I have been Talking at the World Economic Forum in the West for years and with every new technology, you always get this wave of People hyping it and then getting to rename it An anecdote of that is that there is a company change their name from the tea company in the tea blockchain company and their stock Tripled. So how do we combat that in? AI as it’s starting to grow. That’s what gave a rise to the artificial intelligence value protocol So So today, in recent years, you have all been familiar with the rise of AI and how it is prevalent through our everyday life. And me, as being a PhD in AI, I can’t be more ecstatic to see all of this event happening here. And His Excellency, the Minister of Education, dedicated his entire presentation in the opening to AI and how we bring AI. Worldwide, there are today 70,000 companies that actually are incorporated to work on AI. If you think that’s a lot, just wait a few more years. This will be 700,000 companies working on it. Estimates of the impact of AI on the global GDP is somewhere between $15 and $20 trillion of new added value to the international GDP. But this does not come without its own problems. So there are a lot of things that we need to take care of, things like ethical use of AI. How do we avoid biases that happen in AI? Because AI is created by data. Data shapes how the AI thinks. So if we have our own biases within the data that we feed AI, the AI will have the same biases in those. Things like the fraudulent practices, companies claiming that they have a new AI, but they are basically creating a wrapper around Chad GPT and such, so you don’t know how it is fitting to your actual need. And where is the incentivization for all of them to work together? So that’s one important piece that the AI value protocol is trying to address. And taking a page from the GBA BMM model, the AIVP is basically designed so that it can perform two major tasks. One is technical verification and financial certification, each one of them with three levels. And all of that stuff is backed to a blockchain network, allowing the immutability of the transactions that happen there, meaning that if you are an AI project and you register on the platform, now we can track all your value that you provide, as well as verify your systems, both financially and technically. And once that all is set up on an immutable blockchain, we’ll be able of creating a value-based AI marketplace, meaning a marketplace that allows you to discover AI, invest in AI, work in an AI, engage in AI, all governed by the use of a blockchain. So how is that possible? Well, it’s possible by creating a tokenomics underneath it. What does that have to do with it? It’s just like what His Excellency mentioned about signal-to-noise ratio. So we put a certain barrier to remove the noise in the market. AI projects claim that they have delivered value. We ask them to provide that value and pay a fee for that. And that’s then used to power the tokenomics underneath the protocol itself. And then, on top of that, we have created something called proof-of-stake verifiers that has not one, but three published academically peer-reviewed papers on it, which basically, in a nutshell, ensures that there are validators that validate the AI project, not based on the project’s data by itself, but also pair the client’s data. So if you are a client looking to use an AI, you can provide your data set to the verifiers. We have a consensus mechanism, so at least three or more have to pick it up. And then they test it, they write a report on it, and get in consensus. What’s in it for the verifiers? Well, that verification request is usually associated with. a monetary reward so they do the work in order for them to receive the rewards for the verification but at the back end you as the user will be able of getting an unbiased independent report of the AI before you actually use it which is a critical part of what we are trying to create here. So and we have also added into the system the ability for it to have arbitration requests meaning if you think your work is right but others colluded together you can file for an AR in the system to allow it to be re-examined. So in all of that what I am trying to say here is that we are stepping into a new brave world that will have not tens of different AIs but hundreds of thousands of different AIs. We are getting into a world that will utilize asianic swarms which is little agents that work on different smaller systems like phones and laptops and so forth that are trying to work together and it is quintessential that we would create a framework that allows us to be able of discovering those creating an immutable record for them and help them to work together so that we can promote the good ethical use of AI versus unethical use of AI or having it rampant as the wild wild west. So with that I’d like to thank you for listening to me and note on the record that I only took eight minutes in my presentation.

Dino Cataldo DellAccio: Thank you so much Dr. Adel. Yeah with that this is very informative Dr. Adel. Thank you so much. We have the questions for you afterward. Now I will go to Priya. Sorry Priya we’ll go back to you finally. So Priya if you would like to share your screen and before Priya please let me let me just introduce Dr. Anne. Dr. Anne I don’t have words to talk about you. If you would like just to jump in and introduce yourself for us. If you can hear us Dr. Anne. She’s not in the zoom. Okay not in the zoom call now. Priya you go ahead.

Priya Guliani: Perfect, can you hear me?

Dino Cataldo DellAccio: Yes.

Priya Guliani: Hello, everyone, once again, it’s an absolute honor to speak at the IGF today on such a critical and timely theme, the internet we want and can trust. And I’m going to talk about the role of identity in it. Identity is central to trust, but trust is the cornerstone of the internet we envision for the future, yet we find ourselves in an age of rising data breaches, identity theft and privacy concern that erode this trust. The question before us is not just how to rebuild this trust, but how to empower each individual and organization to sustain it. And I believe the answer lies in identity, but not as we know it today. So the role of identity in a trust for the internet is really fundamental to almost every interaction online, whether we are accessing a service, making a transaction or even expressing an opinion, our identities form the bridge of trust between us and the digital world. However, the current centralized models of identity management have left us vulnerable. Our personal data is scattered across platforms often without our knowledge or even control, leading to exploitation, breaches and mistrust. Compounding all of these vulnerabilities, emerging technologies like AI and the looming challenge of quantum computing threaten to reshape the landscape of identity risk. Malak already talked about Willow and AI driven cyber attacks are becoming more sophisticated, integrating centralized databases with precision and exploiting gaps in security to commit large scale identity frauds. Meanwhile, quantum computing could render current encryption methods obsolete, exposing identity systems to unprecedented vulnerability. And to address all of these challenges, the Internet, we must build on the system designed to withstand these future threats. Systems where identity is decentralized, encrypted, safeguarded against both today’s as well as tomorrow’s adversaries. So when we look at it, decentralized identity would become the foundation of such a system combining user empowerment with cutting edge technology like blockchain to create trust in a rapidly evolving digital world. And with that, we’re going to explore decentralized identity a little bit more in detail. I call it the future of trust. Decentralized identity, the future of trust. It reimagines the way we own, control, and share our data. Built on decentralized technologies, it places individuals at the center, allowing them to own their identity, control access to their data, and decide when, how, and with whom we want to share that data. It eliminates reliance on intermediaries, enhancing security, privacy, and user agency. Decentralized identity represents a paradigm shift in the realization of digital human rights as well. If you think about it, by putting individuals at the center of their identity journey, it empowers them to reclaim control over their personal data, ensuring it is used only with their informed consent. This is particularly transformative for historically marginalized groups. So if we think about it, decentralized identity could be particularly transformative for historically marginalized groups, such as unbanked populations, refugees, and those underserved communities, as it provides them with digital tools to participate in the global economy and access the essential services that we all need. Also, the decentralized model directly addresses the challenges posed by emerging threats like AI and quantum computing. The decentralized identity system leverages advanced cryptography and privacy-preserving techniques to ensure that identity data remains secure and inaccessible to unauthorized entities, even in the face of AI-powered attacks. Now if we think about it, with the integration of quantum-resistant cryptographic algorithms, decentralized solutions could be built to withstand the quantum computing era, ensuring long-term protection. And all we are looking at is how do we move beyond the vulnerabilities of centralized systems, build a framework where trust is distributed, privacy is protected, and individuals regain control. So if we summarize, this isn’t just a technological leap, it’s a foundational shift and internet that we can trust, which is resilient, again, present, as well as future threats. If I can talk about Earth IDEA a little bit now, we’ve taken this vision a step further. We are proud to be the first and the only decentralized identity or an identity company which has been assessed by blockchain maturity model.

Dino Cataldo DellAccio: Okay, Bria, if you can hear me, we have only five minutes remaining of this session through all the audience, but I would like to thank you so much for your presentation. It was really impressive. And as you say, blockchain is an infrastructure technology, and we need a lot of regulation to do this, such kind of identity, decentralized identity management. With that, I would like to go to Mai. This is our last presentation, just five minutes. Mai, go ahead, please, if you please can share your presentation. Thank you so much, Bria.

Audience: Hi, everyone. Sorry, the session is running late. I want to talk to you today about how blockchain and emerging technologies can really transform the landscape of global wellness. We tried to go really fast. So I’ll talk about that through our Innovation Network Canada flagship initiative that we call Healthcare Without Borders, or Innovation Without Borders, through Innovation Without Borders. We’re just very quickly about the organization. We’re all about taking a holistic approach, taking a holistic approach to innovation and solving. We’re focused on solving pressing global challenges using holistic innovation right now and with measurable impact using responsible and ethical solutions, interdisciplinary solutions. So a little bit about healthcare right now. It’s quite concerning. These are just some of the stats that tell you a little bit about the current state of healthcare on a global level. The demand for healthcare is skyrocketing. Supply is not catching up to this. Meanwhile, we have lives that are lost and costs skyrocketing. Some stats, half the global deaths are preventable, according to WHO. And 50% of the population do not have access to healthcare. 100 million people every single year are pushed to extreme poverty because of healthcare costs. And finally, inefficiencies in healthcare just in the U.S. cost a trillion dollars every single year. So we’re focused on exactly addressing these challenges using transformative tech. such as blockchain, AI, and quantum computing. These are our projects within the initiative are focused on prevention, personalization, inclusivity, and efficiency. Very quickly, these are the top five projects that we’re working on right now. Blockchain is an essential part of these projects. One of them is providing primary care everywhere in the world, leaving no one behind using economic and effective seamless solutions. Virtual hospital beds, since this is a global problem, a lot of hospitals are running out of beds. Project number three is focused on using quantum-inspired algorithms along with smart textiles to address the global crisis and heart disease. So how can we prevent heart disease, which contributes to 30% of the global deaths every single year, and heart disease is mostly preventable. Number four is developing, using quantum biology, diabetes treatments for, and in this project, we’re working with one of the First Nations in British Columbia, Canada, who, this is an indigenous community. People there do not make it past the age of 60 years old because of diabetes, and we’re not able to address this issue at this point for some reason. So we’re developing, in partnership with the Quantum Biology Institute, therapeutic for diabetes, and blockchain, again, here is an essential part because indigenous communities in Canada have, they’re very particular with data privacy as their data previously gotten misused. Finally, we’re developing a personalized health information system, and I’m gonna talk about it a little bit more. So, call it HealthONE. So this is an AI-based system and blockchain-enabled system. personalized health information system that has a few aspects. One of them is operationally eliminates wasted resources and so on, clinical decision support to empower both patients and consumers with their health. And sorry, some of the slides are not coming properly here. Telehealth and IoT and wearables. And you can see from how these technologies, how much the potential for saving here. So AI and quantum tools that we have, they have the potential to save $1.5 trillion plus millions of lives every year. Blockchain can allow us to aggregate data in one spot, give people data, power over ownership for their data, and the ability to decide who can use the data and so on. Saving billions, and it will allow us to save billions in data breaches and interoperability. Telehealth will allow us to save, handle 71% of hospital visits, doctor visits, saving $200 billion. IoT and wearables actually will have the potential of saving $2.1 trillion for remote monitoring. So I just wanna give you a very quickly here an example, just a use case study of, imagine this, somebody lives in a remote community, they’re wearing smart clothing. When I say smart clothing, it’s simply a shirt or undershirt or chest band and anomalies get detected without them even knowing. So by the way, about half the population, they get cardiac events without even knowing. Some of them become serious, some don’t. So your phone will detect anomalies. Then some questions will pop up on your phone, ask you, provide a diagnosis based on what you’re saying and the biometrics that are being sent, a report, go to your doctor, you get seen using telehealth and so on.

Dino Cataldo DellAccio: This is what it is, May.

Audience: All right.

Dino Cataldo DellAccio: Thank you, everyone. Thank you. If you want to get involved in anything, please send me an email. Thank you so much, May. You’re already on time, but the organizers asked us to finish. Do you have any time for questions or no? No questions for the audience? Nothing? That’s it. All right. Thank you so much for being with us. Thank you, the guys online, Gerard and the team. We appreciate this opportunity to be speaking with you on the IJF. If you have any questions, we’ll take it offline. Thank you.

Agreement Points

Blockchain technology has transformative potential in healthcare

Heather Leigh Flannery

Audience

Dr. Adel Elmessiry

Blockchain enables decentralized clinical research and health data sharing

AI and blockchain can transform global wellness and healthcare delivery

AI value protocol for verifying and incentivizing AI projects in healthcare

Multiple speakers emphasized the potential of blockchain to revolutionize healthcare through improved data sharing, research, and AI integration.

Need for standardization and governance in blockchain adoption

Heather Leigh Flannery

Dino Cataldo DellAccio

Blockchain maturity model essential for trustworthy adoption

Dynamic coalition on blockchain assurance and standardization

Speakers agreed on the importance of standardization and governance frameworks for ensuring trustworthy adoption of blockchain technologies.

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized the need for advanced cryptography and governance frameworks to address future security challenges, including quantum computing threats.

Malak Trabelsi-Loeb

Priya Guliani

Need for quantum-resilient cryptography and governance frameworks

Blockchain-based identity systems enhance security and privacy

Unexpected Consensus

Blockchain’s potential to empower marginalized groups

Priya Guliani

Heather Leigh Flannery

Decentralized identity empowers marginalized groups

Blockchain enables decentralized clinical research and health data sharing

While focusing on different aspects (identity and healthcare), both speakers highlighted blockchain’s potential to empower underserved populations, showing an unexpected consensus on the technology’s social impact.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The main areas of agreement included blockchain’s transformative potential in healthcare, the need for standardization and governance in blockchain adoption, and the importance of addressing future security challenges.

Consensus level

Moderate consensus was observed among speakers, particularly on the potential benefits of blockchain technology in various sectors. This level of agreement suggests a growing recognition of blockchain’s importance across different fields, which could accelerate its development and adoption. However, the diversity of specific use cases and approaches discussed indicates that the field is still evolving, with room for multiple perspectives and solutions.

Different Viewpoints

Approach to addressing quantum computing threats

Malak Trabelsi-Loeb

Priya Guliani

Need for quantum-resilient cryptography and governance frameworks

Blockchain-based identity systems enhance security and privacy

While both speakers acknowledge the threat of quantum computing, Malak emphasizes the need for new cryptography and governance frameworks, while Priya focuses on blockchain-based identity systems as a solution.

Unexpected Differences

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement revolve around the specific applications and priorities of blockchain technology in various sectors, particularly in addressing quantum computing threats and healthcare innovations.

difference_level

The level of disagreement among speakers is relatively low. Most speakers present complementary rather than conflicting views, focusing on different aspects of blockchain applications. This suggests a multifaceted approach to blockchain implementation across various sectors, which could lead to more comprehensive solutions but may also require careful integration of different perspectives in policy-making and standardization efforts.

Partial Agreements

Both speakers agree on the potential of blockchain in healthcare, but Heather focuses on decentralized research and data sharing, while Adel emphasizes AI project verification and incentivization.

Heather Leigh Flannery

Dr. Adel Elmessiry

Blockchain enables decentralized clinical research and health data sharing

AI value protocol for verifying and incentivizing AI projects in healthcare

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized the need for advanced cryptography and governance frameworks to address future security challenges, including quantum computing threats.

Malak Trabelsi-Loeb

Priya Guliani

Need for quantum-resilient cryptography and governance frameworks

Blockchain-based identity systems enhance security and privacy

Key Takeaways

Blockchain technology is seen as foundational for building trust in various domains including healthcare, identity management, and AI governance

Quantum computing poses potential threats to current blockchain cryptography, necessitating quantum-resilient solutions

Decentralized identity systems powered by blockchain can enhance security, privacy and empower marginalized groups

Blockchain and AI have significant potential to transform healthcare delivery and improve global wellness

Standardization and governance frameworks are crucial for responsible adoption of blockchain and emerging technologies

Resolutions and Action Items

Develop and implement a quantum governance model using AI, blockchain and quantum simulations

Utilize the blockchain maturity model for assessing trustworthiness of blockchain projects

Create a value-based AI marketplace governed by blockchain for verifying and incentivizing AI projects

Implement decentralized identity solutions to enhance trust in digital interactions

Unresolved Issues

Specific regulatory frameworks needed for decentralized identity management

Detailed implementation plans for the proposed quantum governance model

Concrete steps for global adoption of blockchain-based healthcare solutions

Addressing potential ethical concerns in AI and blockchain convergence

Suggested Compromises

None identified

Trust systems, people, or technology? And this is a question for the audience. Expert opinion. Good one. Should we say it is consistency or reliability or transparency? Maybe all of them. That’s what is blockchain about.

speaker

Malak Trabelsi-Loeb

reason

This comment challenges the audience to think critically about the foundations of trust in technology and introduces blockchain as a potential solution encompassing multiple aspects of trust.

impact

It set the stage for a deeper discussion on blockchain’s role in building trust and security in digital systems.

The quantum governance model, it’s, it’s feasible and actionable framework, it is it is resting on adaptability. So we adapt and we don’t react.

speaker

Malak Trabelsi-Loeb

reason

This introduces a novel concept of governance that is proactive rather than reactive, specifically designed for emerging technologies.

impact

It shifted the conversation from discussing problems to proposing solutions, encouraging others to think about proactive governance models.

Imagine a world where every individual person on earth was able to engage in an active and dynamic precision health, digital first healthcare and life sciences infrastructure.

speaker

Heather Leigh Flannery

reason

This comment paints a visionary picture of global healthcare empowered by blockchain and AI, challenging participants to think on a grand scale.

impact

It broadened the scope of the discussion from technical aspects to the potential societal impacts of blockchain in healthcare.

The Government Blockchain Association and the Blockchain Assurance and Standardization Dynamic Coalition’s blockchain maturity model is absolutely fundamental to realizing this vision.

speaker

Heather Leigh Flannery

reason

This comment connects the theoretical possibilities to practical implementation through standardization and assurance models.

impact

It grounded the discussion in concrete actions and frameworks, moving from vision to potential execution.

Decentralized identity represents a paradigm shift in the realization of digital human rights as well.

speaker

Priya Guliani

reason

This comment reframes the discussion of decentralized identity from a technical innovation to a human rights issue.

impact

It elevated the conversation to consider the broader societal implications of blockchain technology, particularly for marginalized groups.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by progressively moving from theoretical concepts of trust and governance in blockchain to practical applications in healthcare and identity management. They consistently pushed the conversation to consider broader implications beyond just technology, touching on themes of global equity, human rights, and proactive governance. This approach helped to paint a comprehensive picture of blockchain’s potential impact across multiple sectors and its role in addressing complex global challenges.

How can we create a governance framework that is adaptable to multiple disruptive technologies?

speaker

Malak Trabelsi-Loeb

explanation

This is important to proactively address challenges posed by emerging technologies like quantum computing, AI, and blockchain.

How can we implement the quantum governance model in practice?

speaker

Malak Trabelsi-Loeb

explanation

Understanding the practical implementation is crucial for moving from concept to reality in governing disruptive technologies.

How can we create capital structures and transparent governance processes to fully realize SDG 17?

speaker

Heather Leigh Flannery

explanation

This is critical for enabling effective public-private partnerships and achieving global health and social service goals.

How can we fund and conduct rigorous scientific research to validate blockchain and AI technologies in healthcare?

speaker

Heather Leigh Flannery

explanation

Evidence-based validation is necessary to demonstrate the effectiveness of these technologies in improving population health and health equity.

How can we create a framework to discover, create immutable records for, and promote ethical use of the many AI systems being developed?

speaker

Dr. Adel Elmessiry

explanation

This is essential for managing the proliferation of AI technologies and ensuring their responsible use.

How can decentralized identity systems be made resilient against future threats like quantum computing?

speaker

Priya Guliani

explanation

Ensuring long-term protection of identity systems is crucial for maintaining trust in the digital world.

How can blockchain and emerging technologies be leveraged to address global healthcare challenges like preventable deaths and lack of access?

speaker

Audience

explanation

This research is important for developing innovative solutions to improve global health outcomes and reduce healthcare costs.

Summary

This discussion focused on the role and impact of National and Regional Internet Governance Initiatives (NRIs) in shaping internet governance and the multi-stakeholder model. Panelists from various regions shared their experiences and challenges in implementing NRIs. Key themes included the importance of capacity building, inclusivity, and addressing region-specific issues.

Speakers highlighted the diversity of NRIs across regions, from the MENA region’s focus on basic infrastructure to Europe’s emphasis on consensus-building. The African continent was noted for its vibrant youth engagement and capacity-building efforts. The Asia-Pacific region stressed the need for inclusivity and representation of diverse stakeholders.

Challenges discussed included financial sustainability, government engagement, and adapting to local contexts. The importance of multilingualism and addressing the needs of small island developing states was emphasized. Participants also noted the role of NRIs in informing national policies and contributing to global discussions.

The discussion touched on the upcoming WSIS+20 review and the Global Digital Compact, with many emphasizing the need to strengthen the multi-stakeholder model and secure a longer-term mandate for the IGF. Speakers stressed the importance of NRIs in localizing global principles and providing grassroots input to international processes.

Overall, the session underscored the critical role of NRIs in fostering inclusive dialogue, building capacity, and addressing local and regional internet governance challenges while contributing to the global internet governance ecosystem.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– The importance of national and regional Internet Governance Forum (IGF) initiatives in bringing local issues and perspectives to the global level

– Challenges faced by IGF initiatives, including funding, sustainability, and engaging all stakeholders (especially governments)

– The role of IGFs in capacity building, especially for youth and underrepresented groups

– How IGFs can contribute to the Global Digital Compact and WSIS+20 review process

– The need to strengthen and evolve the multi-stakeholder model of Internet governance

The overall purpose of this discussion was to highlight the crucial role that national, regional and youth IGF initiatives play in the Internet governance ecosystem. It aimed to showcase the diversity of these initiatives around the world and how they contribute to shaping Internet policy discussions at all levels.

The tone of the discussion was largely positive and collaborative, with participants enthusiastically sharing their experiences and achievements. There was also a sense of urgency in addressing challenges and strengthening the IGF model for the future. The tone became more forward-looking towards the end, with calls to action for the upcoming WSIS+20 review process.

Speakers

– Jennifer Chung: Secretary of the Forum of Asia and Africa, Moderator

– Chafic Chaya: Chair of the Lebanon IGF, part of Arab IGF

– Giacomo Mazzone: Part of European Dialogue on Internet Governance (EuroDIG) and Italian IGF, Secretary General of Eurovision

– Lillian Nalwoga: From the African IGF

– Amrita Choudhury: Part of India IGF, Chair of APR IGF Multistakeholder Steering Group

– Charles Noir: From CIRA and part of Canada IGF

– Lilian Chamorro Rojas: From IGF (region not specified)

– Pedro Lana: Online moderator

Additional speakers:

– Bertrand de La Chapelle: Executive Director of the Internet and Jurisdiction Policy Network, Co-initiator of EuroDIG and French IGF

– Phyo Thiri L.: Co-coordinator of YIGF Myanmar and South Asia YIGF

– Andrew Molivurae: Representing regulators office in Vanuatu, Chair of Pacific IGF

– Jasmine Ko: From Hong Kong YIGF

– Nigel Hickson: Member of the UK IGF

– Ahmed Farag: Chair of the North African IGF

– Mery Henrica: IGF fellow from Timor-Leste

– Nazar Nicholas Kirama: From Tanzania IGF

– Sumeet Bhoite: Online participant

– Annalise Williams: 2024 Chair of the Australian Internet Governance Forum

Revised Summary of National and Regional Internet Governance Forum (NRIs) Initiatives Discussion

Evolution of Internet Governance and Multi-stakeholder Model

The discussion highlighted the transformation of internet governance towards a multi-stakeholder model across various regions. Chafic Chaya noted this shift in the MENA region, while Giacomo Mazzone emphasized European institutions’ promotion of consensus-building and multi-stakeholder approaches. Lillian Nalwoga highlighted capacity building initiatives driving multi-stakeholder engagement in Africa. Amrita Choudhury stressed the need for diverse stakeholder inclusion in the Asia-Pacific region, given its vast diversity. Charles Noir underscored the model’s crucial role in the internet’s technical operation, while Lilian Chamorro Rojas emphasized local and regional IGFs’ contributions to global internet governance.

Challenges and Opportunities for NRIs

Several challenges and opportunities for NRIs were identified:

1. Financial Sustainability: Ahmed Farag highlighted significant financial obstacles in sustaining NRI operations.

2. Stakeholder Engagement: Jasmine Ko reported difficulties in engaging government stakeholders, contrasting with Charles Noir’s perspective on NRIs’ value in informing national policymaking.

3. Regional Specific Challenges: Andrew Molivurae emphasized the need for disaster response policy frameworks, while the Phyo Thiri L. noted challenges in fostering youth collaboration across South Asia.

4. Outcome Tracking: Lillian Nalwoga stressed the importance of tracking outcomes from NRI meetings to demonstrate their impact.

5. Multilingualism: Amrita Choudhury highlighted the challenge of addressing multiple languages in internet governance discussions.

Regional Perspectives

The discussion showcased diverse regional perspectives:

1. MENA Region: Chafic Chaya noted the establishment of the Saudi Arabia IGF as a new initiative.

2. Africa: Lillian Nalwoga emphasized the importance of involving legislators and parliamentarians in discussions.

3. Asia-Pacific: Amrita Choudhury highlighted the region’s vast diversity and its impact on internet governance approaches.

4. Pacific Islands: Andrew Molivurae discussed the Pacific IGF’s theme of “strengthening digital governance, resilience and resilience” and the use of Starlink technology in disaster response.

5. Europe: Giacomo Mazzone highlighted the promotion of consensus-building and multi-stakeholder approaches by European institutions.

Capacity Building and Schools of Internet Governance

Multiple speakers emphasized the importance of capacity building initiatives and schools of internet governance in fostering understanding and participation in internet governance processes. These efforts were seen as crucial for developing informed stakeholders and promoting inclusive dialogue across regions.

Future of the IGF and Internet Governance

The discussion looked towards the future of the IGF and internet governance:

1. Global Digital Compact: Giacomo Mazzone suggested that the IGF should support its implementation.

2. WSIS+20 Review: Speakers viewed this as an opportunity to strengthen the IGF mandate and renew commitment to multi-stakeholderism. The Australian IGF’s position statement on WSIS+20 was highlighted as an example of NRI input.

3. IGF Mandate: Nigel Hickson called for a longer mandate for the UN IGF, beyond 10-20 years.

4. Role of IGF: The IGF was highlighted as a key platform for discussing digital policy issues beyond WSIS.

5. NRI Formalization: Andrew Molivurae suggested formalizing NRIs to align with the global IGF.

Key Takeaways and Action Items

1. Strengthen the multi-stakeholder model for effective internet governance.

2. Better integrate NRIs into global processes.

3. Address capacity building and inclusivity challenges, especially in developing regions.

4. Tackle financial sustainability concerns for NRI initiatives.

5. Leverage the WSIS+20 review to reinforce commitment to multi-stakeholderism and the IGF.

6. Engage NRIs in consultation on the future institutional structure of the IGF.

7. Recognize and formalize NRIs in the WSIS+20 resolution.

8. Develop mechanisms to track outcomes from NRI meetings.

9. Increase support for policy frameworks on disaster response in Pacific islands.

10. Improve the capacity of the IGF secretariat, as suggested by Wisdom Donkor.

11. Address the challenge of multilingualism in internet governance discussions.

Conclusion

The discussion underscored the crucial role of NRIs in the internet governance ecosystem, highlighting their importance in bringing local perspectives to global discussions, building capacity, and informing policy. While challenges remain, particularly in terms of financial sustainability and stakeholder engagement, there is a strong consensus on the value of the multi-stakeholder model and the need to strengthen and evolve it for the future of internet governance. The diverse regional perspectives and experiences shared during the discussion demonstrate the richness and complexity of the global internet governance landscape, emphasizing the need for continued dialogue and collaboration across all stakeholder groups.

Jennifer Chung: Hello and welcome everyone. Here is the latest initiative on youth, the growing role of the IRN. My name is Jennifer Chung. I am the secretary of the Forum of Asia and Africa. I have the honor of moderating this session, the development and evolution of Internet governance and the multiparty model has been marked by important processes and initiatives such as the World Net and the World Digital Pact. All these efforts have played a crucial role in the definition of Internet and digital governance in general, by promoting collaboration between the various parties and by promoting the multiparty model. At the local level, our essential for the overall effectiveness and continuous adaptation and improvement and evolution in the multistakeholder practices as we know it. Through exchanges in the community, we have gathered over 174 national regional initiatives. This panel will address the pivotal discourse that happen at these local grassroots level and how this has shaped the evolution of Internet governance and the multistakeholder model. We have with us here an illustrious panel and more online and in the room as well who will bring you through all of the good discourses by each region, by each initiative. A little bit of housekeeping. Of course, with the diversity of our panelists and also speakers, please do remember to use your headset. I will now turn to our first esteemed speaker. I will give you a moment to put on your headset. From the home region that we are here, in the MENA region, I am honored to introduce Mr. Chafic Chaya, chair of the Lebanon IGF and also part of Arab IGF. In the 20 years of WSIS, where do we stand with respect to Internet governance processes and the multistakeholder approach?

Chafic Chaya: Thank you, Jennifer. Thank you. Good afternoon. So, I speak in Arabic. Peace be upon you. I’m honored to be part of this discussion today and to share with you the important role played by the National Regional Initiatives, NRIs, in discussing intergovernance in the MENA region. This is not just a narrative about governance. It is a transformational story and development story, while the MENA region is witnessing a notable transformation from conventional governance into multi-stakeholder governance model should focus on the conclusiveness and flexibility and cooperation. The global OASIS has laid the foundation through the governance principles of multi-stakeholder and the different national initiatives and regional initiatives has localized these principles and harmonized it to fit with the needs of the region. This region is not just atop these frameworks, rather it has innovated to cope and to amend it according to the needs of our communities. What really inspires us today is that how this dealing between the conventional models and the multi-stakeholder model became a major feature of such transformation, such increasing momentum within these governance processes and the United Nations to achieve the balance between two approaches, encourage the stakeholders to adopt innovative governance models with such powers that are not competing anymore. They are integrating and complementing each other. These national initiatives and regional initiatives became major pillars in this process, whereby it plays the bridge which links between the different dialogues. multi-stakeholder dialogues and the high-level decision-making process. This initiative contributes to empower the stakeholders, including the governments, technical community, private sector, academia, civil society, to work effectively to address the national priorities and regional priorities and to achieve the joint and the common goals. The increasing amount of these national and regional initiatives in this region, such as Lebanon Internet Governance Forum and the Arab Governance Forum, or North Africa Internet Governance Forum, and many others, reflects the concern by the stakeholders to promote comprehensive and cooperative governance. Today they will come, including the Saudi Internet Governance Forum, as a new national initiative, which gives more momentum to these different initiatives and promote and push forward the common regional priorities forward. However, such initiatives, national initiatives and regional initiatives, do not work in isolation or in silos. They are complementing initiatives from different stakeholders, such as the activities by the tech community, which is represented by the RICC, ICANN and ISOC. For example, a group of network operators in the MENOC, and we have the Middle East School for MESEC, and we have meetings, roundtable meetings, government roundtable meetings, and the programs designed for the countries according to their needs, and many other initiatives. All brings together the stakeholders to build the capacities through providing the technical expertise and exchange of knowledge. Such activities ensures the integration of technical aspects and personal aspects of the Internet within the global… the global wide discussion about the Internet Governance which promote the ecosystem of the Internet. At the end, while we are looking forward within the 20 years since the organization of the first OASIS, we can today see the progress achieved so far. However, we are still at the beginning of the road to build a framework for the Internet Governance that will be flexible, resilient, inclusive, and ready for the requirements of our digital future. Thank you so much, Jennifer.

Jennifer Chung: Thank you so much, Shafiq. It is so heartening to know that we have now the Saudi Arabia IGF and so much more coming in this MENA region. I think it’s doing a lot to bring the discourse together, bringing the framework together collaboratively, and of course, congratulations again for that. It’s so important for us to remember this is a region that has a lot to offer, a lot of knowledge, a lot of expertise, and the issues crucial to this region can be solved with all these discussions in a multi-stakeholder manner, and going forward inside that kind of framework as well. I’d like to turn now to the Europe region. It’s my honour to introduce Mr Giacomo Mazzone, part of the European Dialogue on Internet Governance, EuroDIG, and also Italian IGF. I know currently we have an ongoing targeted consultation on internet governance targeted by the European Commission. In that context, do you think that the multi-stakeholder approach can pave the way for inclusiveness and internet resilience in times of crisis?

Giacomo Mazzone: Thank you for giving me the floor. I’m a member of the board of EuroDIG, I’m collaborating with the Italian IGF, and I’m Secretary General of Eurovision. All roles that are part of this dialogue that we are constantly doing in Europe. In Europe, after the lesson of the war, we have understood that we cannot go by a single nation, but we need to go through a permanent dialogue. And so we have created two institutions that are pivotal for us. One is the European Union that embraces 27 countries, the other one is the Council of Europe that covers all of Europe. through these two institutions we have learned in the last 60 years that we have to go through consensus and trying to reach common positions. This started in a multilateral way but then since 40 years this has been enlarged by both institutions to civil society, to academia, to industry, to all the components of society because most of the process need to be built on consensus. Thanks to that we are trying to tackle as was the question that how we can, if this help to build internet resilience in time of crisis, for instance we had the European elections in June this year and we were all afraid that could have an impact for the use of the artificial intelligence as a support for disinformation and trying to undermine the credibility of the elections. Then has been put in place a certain number of actions that have been able to give us the possibility to go through this election without so much impact. For instance there is a regulation that says that the platform need to enforce as soon as possible the things when they are signaled that there is something going wrong. So hard regulation is in place. Then there is moral suasion regulation and co-regulation that is the code of practice has been put in place with the platform signed with the European Commission that means that the platform even if there is not a crime that is going on on the platform but there is something that could be harmful they have to behave and cooperate and then there are this is not made by a ministry of truth. but is made in cooperation with fact-checkers that are grassroots organizations and the traditional media that signal when there is a problem and the problem then could be solved. This proved to be an efficient way to work and in fact the attack, there has been many attacks, but there’s been under control and they didn’t harm too much the election. This now currently just to show you one of the model, how it works, the model, we have now to decide as European what will be the European position and the nation that are part of the European Union and the nation that are part of the Council of Europe position in the UN next year for the renewal of the mandate of the IGF and the WSS forum. So, what the Commission has made, there was an initial position of the Council that says we need to have a common position and this principle need to be defended, the multi-stakeholderism, the integration, the cooperation, the non-fragmentation of the Internet, etc. Then a consultation has been launched just three weeks ago and will end mid of January. This consultation is open to all society, all components of society. So at the end of this consultation, the position of the stakeholders will be integrated in a background paper. This paper will be brought to the attention of the institution and then it will be the basis for what the European Union and the single members will vote in the General Assembly. This is the best way we are trying to do in order to be multi-stakeholder and to embrace all voices of the society.

Jennifer Chung: Thank you so much, Giacomo, for giving us the overview. of what the European Commission and also the European community is trying to do, I really like that your emphasis really is to go for consensus and common positions to defend multistakeholderism in the really crucial year ahead when we’re looking towards WSIS plus 20 review. Now I’d like to turn over to the Africa region, always a young and vibrant region. It’s my pleasure to introduce Ms Lillian Nalwoga from the African IGF. With the continent’s point of view, how can internet governance be more useful to all stakeholders so that they identify national regional spaces as a key venue for advocacy? Lillian.

Lillian Nalwoga: Thank you so much Jennifer, it’s a pleasure to be here and to speak about our vibrant continent. Just what I would like to first highlight is, yes the vibrancy comes in the number of initiatives that the continent has been able to achieve. To date we have approximately 36 national initiatives and we have five regional initiatives representing the north, the east, the west, central and south. In all these processes we are seeing the vibrancy of the community, we are seeing the multistakeholder approach coming into play. We are also seeing capacity building. So when we are looking at how can we make stakeholders, how can we utilise internet governance as a space for NRIs to be doing advocacy, I would say this comes from the vibrancy that we are seeing in the communities. But the one thing that has been able to be identified is the need for capacity building. building, and what we’ve seen is we’ve seen quite a number of regional schools, national schools, and continental schools. I think at the regional level, every regional IGF within Africa has a school on internet governance, and if we’re, that is the beginning point. At the continental level, we do have the Africa school on internet governance, and this has used, has been a space for building capacity of different stakeholders, and it’s not limiting to, say, civil society or academia or private sector or government. It is inclusive, and it follows a bottom-up approach, and what I can say, I’m a beneficiary of the Africa, of the AFRICIC, when it launched in 2013, so you can see where I am today, and we’ve seen quite a number of different stakeholders from government. So, for us to say how can we use this space, first we are looking at capacity building, but the most recent initiative where we saw a gap was in how do we get our legislators to pass inclusive policies and understand, you know, issues on internet governance, and hence the Africa Parliamentary Network on Internet Governance was introduced, and I’m sure there’s quite a big delegation from members of parliament from Africa who have benefited from this. So the approach here we are taking is we need to look at this at all, you know, from different angles. If we are to say that internet governance, the entire ecosystem, how do we start with policy, we build the capacity of the stakeholders, the legislators, but also try to open it up in 4D. different actors. The other thing that I would like to mention is we need to be able to develop and track outcomes. Because when we started many years ago, the internet governance space was looked at as a talk shop where we come and talk things. But recently, we’ve been able to, every meeting produces a key outcome document. I think the next step right now is to be able to track and see how these are being implemented at country level, at regional level. And this will be able to use this space as a key place for advocacy for the different stakeholders in the NRIs. Thank you.

Jennifer Chung: Thank you so much, Lillian. I think you’re doing my job for me, because it’s a beautiful, perfect segue. I really like your emphasis on capacity building. Africa as a continent is young and vibrant. And we need to bring the young people with us. We need to bring other stakeholders who need to be in this space, in the internet governance discussion spaces, digital process discussion spaces, to be able to understand, first, the concerns and the issues from the community, and also what internet governance is all about. Now I’d like to turn over to my home region, Asia Pacific. It’s my honor to introduce Ms. Amrita Choudhury, part of the India IGF and also chair of the APR IGF, Multistakeholder Steering Group. In the APAC context, which voices should be in the model at the national, regional, and I guess local level as well? And how can they be effectively brought in?

Amrita Choudhury: Thank you, Jennifer. And APAC is very huge and diverse, not only in terms of countries, cultures, languages, economies, but also the level of adoption of technology. So if you ask me the question, my first response would be everyone but if I drill it down a bit more I would say every relevant stakeholder who matters for that discussion. So you know I’ll just take a step back and I’ll talk about what APR IGF has been doing is one not just working as the focal point for regional IGF but also to build capacity. For example bringing in more youth. Our fellowship is such that we try to have a better gender balance wherein we have more women coming in because we want and especially from economies which are unrepresented. It could be the Pacifics it could be many many countries from where we can bring. Do note that some countries like Afghanistan we do try to bring out but it’s difficult because of sanctions. We do have some more countries of that kind. We also try the other thing which is important is to assist the national IGFs or youth IGFs in the country and that’s something which we feel is important because you could not only have the discussions at a national level but also get some essence of what is important for that region which can feed in when we decide things especially in APAC in our APR IGFs themes and sub themes and also drill down the important things because for example many times the national IGF for example may not know what the contemporary internet governance discussions globally are which for example the Asia-Pacific regional IGF can know like what’s happening in the GDC which edition of the text is going on what is concerning so we try to demystify those pass it on to the community members who are already involved because we believe the more information you pass on to the communities they would be in a better position to decide. We ask them for inputs. We also, you know, it is also important to encourage the schools of internet governance because that is where people can build their capacity. It’s important that people understand the various nuances. Many times you’ll find the, especially the younger generation, take everything for granted because they’ve got internet technologies on their platter. But what goes behind it is something which they need to know and once people know that why it matters, they start raising their voices. So I think those things are important to increase the reach, create opportunities where they can come and participate, like, for example, giving them the young voices a chance to come and participate and share their views with people who may have been in the community for long without any prejudice or hesitation. I think that’s important. And also disseminating information, just like Lillian was saying, we have, you know, the outcome document which comes out from APRIG, the synthesis document, which we try to circulate to all the economies, hopefully if some regulator, etc., kind of pick it up, and also to build capacity amongst different groups, like it could be parliamentarians, it could be others who actually need to build capacity on these things. So I’ll stop at this. Thanks, Jen.

Jennifer Chung: Thank you so much, Amrita. I think Lillian has started and Amrita has also emphasised the crucial role that schools of Internet governance play as well in order to bring information, build up capacity, impart knowledge, particularly I think I’m going to go back to one small point that’s actually not a small point, a very important point, that Lillian has raised about bringing in the legislators, the parliamentarians, and I know there was a parliamentarian legislator’s track here in Riyadh as well, to have those who are creating policy, making legislation, to make sure that they create inclusive policies, inclusive legislations. And of course, imparting with what Amrita has also… mentioned to create opportunities for every voice that needs to be here at the table. Now I’m going to move to another region, the North America region. It’s my honor to introduce Mr. Charles Noir, CIRA and also part of Canada IGF. How is Internet governance and the multi-stakeholder model evolving from your regional point of view? Charles, please.

Charles Noir: Thank you, Jennifer. First of all, great to be here and with you all in Saudi Arabia and thank you to the hosts for a wonderful meeting. CIRA, for those of you that don’t know, is the Canadian Internet Registration Authority and we’re best known for running the cctld.ca. We do other things, but I won’t get into it. And we have been the main sponsor and secretariat for the Canadian IGF since its beginning in 2019. So I’m sitting on this stage today and coming to you from a technical operator perspective, but talking about the IGF in Canada, of course, it’s multi-stakeholder and that’s where I want to start. It’s really about a community engagement in Canada as it is elsewhere and we’re hearing on the stage. We focus on critical issues that affect the Internet or that the Internet is producing and generally we do that to identify, hopefully, some shared policy positions that we might take away from and at times to understand where different points of view are coming from. There’s very critical discussions going on in Canada as well as in other countries, of course, around the world and globally. We speak about a number of those, cybersecurity, for example, online harms was this year’s focus as well, misinformation, connectivity, all of the topics that we’re covering here, including artificial intelligence, were certainly points that we cover within the IGF space in Canada. And we believe that we’re at an inflection point more generally within the… global internet governance space because of the WSIS Plus 20, because of GDC. Also within Canada, we’re seeing for the first time a whole suite of regulation that will affect the internet. And so we’re really engaging the community across the country from every stakeholder group to try to bring us together to inform and support our policymakers in their decision-making, both within the domestic space but also globally in meetings like this, but also in negotiations like the WSIS Plus 20 and what we’re seeing in GDC. So Canada’s been a proud, huge supporter of the multi-stakeholder model, both as an internet community, collectively all stakeholders, and I believe in our government. We see the WSIS Plus 20 as an opportunity to reinforce and dedicate for the next, hopefully, next 10 years, a commitment to multi-stakeholderism, including, obviously, the IGF. Sure, there’s room for improvement. We want to recognize that the multi-stakeholder governance model today, and the IGF, CIGF being part of that, is the reason why we have an internet that works like it does today from a technical operating perspective. Yes, there are difficulties, we’re encountering them, we’re discussing them, we need to address them, but the reason why I can call someone on the other side of the world and instantaneously connect is because we have the multi-stakeholder model in action governing the technical layer of the internet. We see the CIGF and regional NRIs as really important in terms of supporting governments, national governments. When we see governments engage in internet policy, we believe that the Canadian IGF, for example, will be a source of information, a source of advice and guidance for policymakers making decisions about… these important and crucial next steps in the phase of the Internet and how it’s governed. And from that we really see an opportunity to develop unified policy positions where we can all agree as all stakeholders, academic, private sector, technical community, etc. coming together so that we can focus on what we believe our priorities should be and what our government’s priorities should be in these spaces, particularly within the context of UN decision-making and domestic legislation. I would also like to add that we also see an opportunity within the technical community to organize as a community. The technical community, for example, like all stakeholder communities, is very diverse and we’ve worked with about 29 other technical operators around the world in every continent in coming together in a coalition called the Technical Community Coalition for Multistakeholderism, TCCM, and again we see that as an opportunity to coordinate globally and it brings roots out of the IGF spirit and out of the notion that we’re coming together as a stakeholder group to represent common positions that we believe should be considered in global negotiations. Some of that was exemplified in our input within the GDC context and we will be very active in the WSIS context as well as we move into the WSIS plus 20. In terms, again, I’d like to just focus on the idea that multistakeholderism, the IGF, the regional initiatives really have contributed, I want to leave with this note, really have contributed and are the reason why we have the internet we have today. Again, we have issues, we’re exploring them, we’re discussing them, but fundamentally as a base idea and a base form of governance, this is what we want to see continue, this is what we want to see evolve. The Canadian IGF is committed. that, and certainly we are as a TCCM, as a technical operator.

Jennifer Chung: Thank you so much, Charles. Thank you for also highlighting the crucial role that the technical community plays in actually keeping the Internet on so we can have these discussions. It’s the foundation where we build on all of these myriad of issues when we talk about Internet governance without the Internet actually working. I don’t think we have so much to talk about, right, at this point. For the technical community as well, it is really crucial for them to focus on keeping that the Internet remains open and free, global and secure, resilient, and interoperable, so we can have all of these discussions that we are having right now. And last but not least, I’d like to go to our region, GRULAC region. It’s my honor to introduce Ms. Lillian Chamorro from the IGF. I’ll give everybody a little moment to put on their headsets. So Lillian, what is the impact of NetMundial Plus 10, WSIS Plus 20, and the global digital compact process on Internet governance and the multi-stakeholder model, and how can we use all these principles to advance them?

Lilian Chamorro Rojas: Hola. Bueno, muchas gracias. Thank you. I’m going to speak in Spanish. Thank you so much for the invitation. Thanks Jennifer. Thanks to the Secretariat and all my colleagues present here. We see that WSIS is something we have been talking about lately. Next year in this space, we will define the mandate for the IGF in the next years to come, and we believe that from our point of view in Latin America, we see a real opportunity in front of us because the IGF is a platform that’s allowing us to do follow-ups and a review of all the objectives of the GDC and the action items of the WSIS. And we consider that these two, together with the structures that are being created for the Internet governance in the next few years, can be leveraged to discuss and assess the implementation of the agreements, both in the national and the regional context, as well as global. Having all this clear structure of all the initiatives of governance, right? So we also want to share this experience, this very valuable experience of inviting all the stakeholders to the conversation. The GDC has presented some actionable steps that we can see in the local realities, in the regional and national levels, and when we talk about youth and other communities that are also having the dialogue regarding governance and always focus on the needs of certain communities. And so we are looking at the NRIs, and we’ve seen an increase in the activity in these NRIs, in terms of number of initiatives and number of people who are participating, and we’ve seen this going up and increasing a lot. And we already mentioned this before, and my colleagues also mentioned this, that these contribute for the capacity building, but also in the creation of forums for dialogue and conversation, and also to localize and see what are the needs in every different space, according to different needs and contexts. We think that these spaces contribute also to the deployment. of technologies, because this is when we can see how these technologies are implemented, how they are transformed, how they influence the lives of people, both in a regional and national level, and, of course, also with the focus of the multi-stakeholder approach. We’re not having a bias from one point of view, but we see different points of view. The diversity of initiatives, I think, is something that is very beautiful to see. I see this group of people here in front of me, and all the people who have been sharing space in this IGF, and I really see the beauty in these encounters, in all of us talking about all these transcendental topics, that it’s not only the NRIs, but also having youth as being part of it, the Portuguese speakers, the forum in the Caribbean, that is one of the forums that has been working for the longest, and the commitments to follow the GDC initiatives like in data governance or AI, and other topics related to environment, migration, and other topics that are very related to our context, and these structures are shaped according to the diversity of territories and different communities, so we should appreciate them and leverage them as they are, as a diversity they present. IGFs are a valuable space to have common dialogue, like the WCs and the GDC. We were invited to be creative and find new frameworks, so I want to talk about new world dialogues that are inviting us to have new governance. models and taking this multi-stakeholder models and then having a dialogue so that we create the open collaborative open Internet that we want. These dialogues can be the basis for experimental collaboration and also have this governance framework that can allow us to have a better decision-making, make more concrete proposals and create action steps to advance to the Internet we want and we can overcome the current challenges we face.

Jennifer Chung: Thank you very much Lillian, I think your ending was actually very perfect. To have common dialogue and to celebrate the diversity of inputs we bring from across the entire globe with all of the regions included. Now I started off the session by saying this network, this NRI network is 174 initiatives and counting. There are many in this room, there are many online. We would love to hear from you. So I think we have actually roaming mics in the room, technical persons please indicate if that’s possible, but we would like to open the floor to people who have reactions and also can share what their region, their national initiative is actually doing right now. The impacts of multi-stakeholder processes, dialogue is happening at the local and grassroots level, what they are hoping to achieve especially in terms of input into the WSIS plus 20 review process next year. I think we heard in every single session almost in this Riyadh meeting that there is need to have dialogue, there’s need to have common positions to defend multi-stakeholder processes when we’re talking about internet governance, when we’re talking about digital governance as well. I would like to also introduce, we have our online moderator, Pedro Llana. Pedro will be the person who will be looking at all of our online participants who are probably very involved with the national, regional, and youth initiatives in their home economies as well. So please, Pedro, let me know if there is anything online as well from this NRI network from the greater communities that go to these different meetings, go to these initiatives, or even just tuning in remotely all across the globe to this meeting here in Riyadh. Are we able to hear Pedro? If we’re not able to hear Pedro, I will come back to him, and I’ll actually drill down a little more on what we’ve heard so far on our panelists. Maybe this will inspire more input from those who are actually thinking about what their meetings in their home countries, in their home economies, are actually having. I think that there’s a lot of local issues, a lot of regional issues that are discussed in NRI meetings that sometimes do not make their way all the way to the global IGF at the annual meeting. Of course, it’s always competitive when you’re looking at the scheduling, but is there something that is very unique to your region, perhaps, that you think is very important to bring up to the global level that hasn’t had an opportunity quite yet, especially when we’re looking into WSIS 20 review next year, and also impacting the evolution of how we’re discussing? I don’t know if any of our panelists up here would like to take a stab. Chafic, please.

Chafic Chaya: Thank you, Jennifer. First, thank you for Saudi Arabia and for hosting this IGF in Riyadh. in this region, this is a very important step and this very important initiative to get the IGF to our region to share with the global IGF what the challenges we are facing. As you know, each region has its own challenge. And while the European or the Western countries, they are now looking after AI and looking after in terms of things and smart cities, we are still having some countries in this region, they don’t have the basic infrastructure to connect people. So our priority is to give the connectivity to these people to connect. We know from the ITU that there is still 2.6 billion unconnected people, and most of them are in Africa, which is the region nearby. So the importance of having these events in this region is to get the voices of these countries up to the global level so they can be taken in consideration. Because once again, our challenges is totally different from other countries or other region challenges. Thank you.

Jennifer Chung: Thank you, Chafic. I know that you’ve highlighted that there is still 2.6 billion unconnected. That is a sheer number that, of course, is really also central to the Africa region and also Asia-Pacific region. I don’t know if Amrita would like to expand a little more on that challenge as well when we’re looking at Asia-Pacific.

Amrita Choudhury: Yes, thank you, Jen. I think one beauty of the NRIs is that while there are many issues which may be very endemic to a country or region, but there are challenges in most of the region in some context or form of those. For example, as Shafiq mentioned, access is one. Basic infrastructure, for example, there are countries even, as I mentioned in my initial remark, Asia-Pacific is very diverse. You have extremely developed countries and you have countries where the networks have still not Are not working or cannot work due to sanctions, etc As in they are working but not, you know, and we have the Pacific Islands who have different challenges, you know Because of climate changes, etc. There’s water rising. There are other issues which are happening So it’s in there are different challenges people do bring in but again You know how you have that assimilated is difficult because every region has different issues Access is difficult Multilingualism is important as in if I look at the countries a country like India has 22 official languages Let alone unofficial similarly in many parts of Asia Pacific language is an issue, you know having everything in those languages Access, you know basic access is an issue for people Rights to even access it for example, I’ll come back to Afghanistan Women do not have any rights. Women do not even have right to an internet device That’s a challenge when we are talking about so many things achieving SDG goals. So those are diverse I think we try to bring it up and see what can be done Yeah, so, you know, there are higher level issues and there are deep-rooted issues which needs to be worked like anything

Jennifer Chung: Thank You, I’m Rita. I like that you brought up also Multilingualism as a challenge and also a strength in the diversity of the languages that we’re allowed to speak I know here we have translation in the six UN languages So you heard her speak in Arabic and you heard Lillian being able to speak in in Spanish and for myself I’m very lucky to be able to use my language to speak in Chinese I’m very lucky to be able to use my language Chinese to be able to speak to everyone But that is not the case for every single language that you see on you know that’s represented by the people you see here on the panel and I’m sure many, many more in the audience. I know that we probably in the audience because the light is now shining into my eyes and I cannot see your faces, but there must be many NRI and youth initiatives representatives from Francophonie countries who do have a lot to contribute and input on. And I urge you also to raise your hand if you have inputs that you would like to make during this national regional sub-regional youth initiative main session to share with us your issues and how internet governance and especially the multi-stakeholder process has evolved discussion in your home economies. And of course, we welcome you to speak in your language in French as well. I’d like to now go back again to see if we’re able to unmute Mr. Pedro Lana who is our online moderator.

Pedro Lana: Yes, Jennifer, can you hear me?

Jennifer Chung: Yes, we can hear you Pedro, please go ahead.

Pedro Lana: Perfect. We have two raised hands and one question in the chat in order to alternate between onsite and online questions. I think we can go with Dr. Jimson Olapunha who has his hand raised and then we’ll go to the other questions posed. If there is no onsite question or commenters. Can I go in that direction, Jennifer?

Jennifer Chung: Yes, we can take the online interventions. I see some hands up. So Pedro, I’ll allow you to unmute them or Tech can unmute them and please have your, you can moderate the online inputs, please.

Pedro Lana: Tech, can you unmute Dr. Jimson?

Jennifer Chung: Ah, I see Jimson actually in the room. So, yes, he is online and in the room, which is amazing. and we all are as well. Jimson, please go ahead.

Audience: Good evening, everybody. Good afternoon. And I want to first and foremost say I’m Jimson Olufoye, the Chair of the Advisory Council of Africa ICT Alliance. And I’m a private sector person and I run a private sector concern organization. I want to commend the MAG. The MAG have been doing fantastic work. We really appreciate all your work, all your effort across the world. We appreciate you very much. And Jennifer in particular, your work in IGF-SA, we appreciate it for the global community. I have two questions. The first one is connected with what you mentioned about the Net Mundia multistakeholder guidelines. I want to ask the panel how many of us have been using these guidelines because I believe it has the capacity to ensure that every stakeholder concern is brought to the table. And when we have all stakeholders on the table, we can easily tackle all our societal challenges together. And I’m very happy that the IGF has been very successful in bringing all these together because there will be ownership. Secondly, you also talk about the global digital compact. There are two outcomes of the WSIS 2005 agenda. The first one is the digital compact. The second one is the multistakeholder guidelines. And the third one is the multistakeholder guidelines. And the third one is the multistakeholder that. So, that’s the twin part, AIRS Corporation was only just came to fruition since 2025, since 2005, just September last year, when the global community, the world leaders agreed to the Pact for the Future, wherein we have the Global Data Compact. Excellent. So now, going forward, the question is, from your experiences across the continent, what do you think about how we will proceed to implement the Global Data Compact in our respective regions and countries? Should it be integrated into IGF, because IGF has been successful, or should we create another stream of engagement for that? Thank you very much.

Jennifer Chung: Thank you, Jimson. I’ll allow my panelists to give it a little bit of thought. I’ll go straight, actually, to our French intervention, I think, I believe, online. So I’ll go to Pedro first, and then we can go back to the panelists.

Pedro Lana: We have chat as well, but we will leave that for after Nina make her contribution.

Audience: Thank you. Can everyone hear me? Yes. Great. I will speak in French, so I’m giving half a second for people to grab their headsets. Hello, I’m Nina. I come from the internet. I am in Abidjan, in Ivory Coast. I would like to raise the attention on sustainability of the secretariat of the IGF in our country. In our country, we have this multi-stakeholder approach, but after two years… We are tired. And when we have this problem, the secretariat, the government, social society, the private sector, speak all at the same time. So here, it would be good to share what is the experience that we have when we talk about secretariat of the forum, when we talk about regional initiatives and national initiatives. I’m talking about that because I’m in West Africa. We have different experiences. We get different international aid, financial aid, but that cannot go in the pocket of a government. So we have been recommended to have a secretariat. But taking into account the forum agility, do we have to ask the social society to get this finance, this money on our account? So it’s not easy to manage. So I would like to ask to the panelists, what is your experience? What do you recommend us to have a sustainable secretariat? And also, to have a body who could get this aid, this monetary aid to support our activities in the framework of the different capacities of the secretariat, in the framework of the forum. Thank you very much.

Jennifer Chung: Thank you, Nena. I think I speak for, well, I will presume to use my moderator prerogative to say that those of us sitting on the stage are no more experts than those of you here in the room. I already hear questions about how regionals or even nationals will look into implementing all of the different things recommended in the Global Digital Compact. I heard about the question about have we used the Sao Paulo guidelines coming out of NetMundial Plus 10 and how have we done so? And then finally, from Nena, we heard the importance of the sustainability, monetary, the financial sustainability of the IGF Secretariat. I see there is a line at the podium, so I’ll go straight to our next speaker. Please introduce yourself.

Audience: Thank you very much. My name is Nigel Castamere from the Caribbean Telecommunications Union. We’ve coordinated the Caribbean IGF since 2005, and basically, Jennifer, to respond to what you asked about getting experiences from around the world, the Caribbean is part of the GRULAC, and Lilian did mention the CIGF in her presentation. Basically, just to say the challenge we have is the Caribbean, whereas the AP is large and diverse, the Caribbean is small and diverse. Lots of small countries, restricted resources, and so on. But just within the Caribbean, there are four different language groups. I myself am from more the English-speaking language group, and notwithstanding, we have a Caribbean internet governance forum. We have had participation from some of the other language groups, but it has been to date in English. In 2025, we plan to have our 21st CIGF in Cuba, which would be a stretch for us, and we’d be learning, but it would be a more inclusive type of an approach. So we’d probably have a bilingual CIGF for the first time. And then beyond, say, regional communities of interest, we’ve also reached out to other communities of interest, like we are all small island developing states, and we have started a liaison with small island developing states around the world. The Pacific in particular has been our most reliable partner to create a small island developing states CIGF, and we’ve had two sittings of that so far. Of course, that has tended to be more virtual than in person, but it helps us to share our experience with small island developing states around the world who maybe don’t have all the resources to investigate all of these internet governance matters and so on. And one of the products of our CIGF, in fact, has been a policy framework that we have given to help inform our governments in terms of developing internet governance policies. So just to give you an idea of what has been happening, some of these challenges that we face in our region, and what we’ve been doing so far. Thank you.

Jennifer Chung: Thank you very much, Nigel. Especially in highlighting that there is a small island developing states CIGF, so SIDS IGF, looking at issues that are very unique to these states, and also congratulations for the next edition being in Cuba. I’m sure that it’s going to be very interesting and very rewarding. to have a regional meeting there or sub-regional meeting there as well. I’m going to pause to see if there’s any online interventions, I don’t see any hands, so I’ll go to our next speaker in the podium.

Audience: Thank you, Jennifer, and thank you for organising this important session. My name is Annalise Williams, I was the 2024 Chair of the Australian Internet Governance Forum, and just going back to your comment or question earlier about what NRIs are wanting in going into WSIS, we held the Australian IGF in October of this year, and for the first time we developed a position statement, like an output of the IGF. It was drafted by the committee, we put it out for input from stakeholders, and it was agreed, adopted by consensus at the IGF, and it is a position statement on what the Australian internet community wants from the WSIS process. We called on the WSIS review process to adopt meaningful multi-stakeholder processes consistent with the Sao Paolo multi-stakeholder guidelines. We called on the Australian government to ensure the full participation of Australia’s multi-stakeholder community in Australia’s national preparations for the WSIS, and in terms of the IGF, we called for its continuation of its mandate, and we also called on all stakeholders, particularly governments and the private sector, to fully participate in the IGF and commit to its ongoing financial sustainability, and to consider ways to strengthen and enhance the value and efficacy of the IGF, both as a discussion forum and as a key source of information on digital policy issues beyond WSIS. I just wanted to flag that we had done that in Australia. Thank you.

Jennifer Chung: I think it’s really important to highlight all of the different national meetings that have looked into this and it’s really good that the AUIGF has had this output document looking specifically at WSIS plus 20 inputs and also how the Zampala guidelines can be utilised and also how the GDC or implementation of parts of it can be looked at for the Australian community. I’d like to encourage also all of those participants in the Pacific IGF to also input as well. I know there are many, many issues near and dear to your region that are not reflected and are quite unique to the Pacific region as well. I’d like to take a look to see if we have any more online. I don’t believe there are any new hands up. I’d like to go to our next speaker at the podium. Bertrand, please go ahead.

Bertrand La Chapelle: Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Bertrand La Chapelle. I’m the Executive Director of the Internet and Jurisdiction Policy Network and I’m happy to have been one of the co-initiators of both the European IGF, the EuroDIG and the French IGF. One, I find fascinating that from the bottom up, the IGF has transformed into what is today a network of IGF. And so the annual global IGF is actually the global gathering of the network of IGFs. And we should flip the thinking and not see the IGF as proliferating at national level, but we should consider that the global meeting is the moment where the input coming from the IGFs at the national and regional level can be clustered and analyzed together so that, like a respiration, it goes back to them afterwards. The second thing is, as I mentioned in the previous session, the IGF at the global level, but Nenad was mentioning that it is a problem. at the local level as well, is usually caught in a catch-22 situation between the lack of resources and the difficulty to articulate an ambitious vision, because if you don’t have the resources, it’s hard to have a vision and implement it. But if you don’t have the vision, you cannot muster the resources. And in that regard, as Charles was mentioning, I want to give credit to, in many parts of the world, the local country code level domain, CCTLD operators, who have been instrumental, not the only actors, but instrumental sometimes, in providing not only financial, but logistical and in large part substantial support to the local IGFs. And I would like just to put on the table the fact that ICANN is basically the global tax collector for the management of the domain name system and the global public resource. The more it can do to support the global IGF, the better. But the final point I want to make is, and I’m glad to have the opportunity to do it here, is that there’s one topic that we will all have to address next year, which is what is the expanded, renewed, but also revised mandate of the global IGF? And what is its further institutionalization? And for that, I suggest, and I would be happy to have the feedback from people on the panel if they are willing, I think having an engagement of the NRIs in a consultation during 2025 on what do they think should be the process to move beyond the question of reconduction or not, but to address really the question of what is the next institutional step for the IGF would be an amazing approach. I would be really looking forward to seeing what the local and regional IGFs have to say. have to contribute to this discussion.

Jennifer Chung: Thank you, Bertrand. I’ll pause very quickly to see if there’s only two reactions from the panels from all the questions we’ve heard so far.

Giacomo Mazzone: Yes, thank you. I would like to answer to what has been said by Olufoye at the beginning and by Bertrand now. I think that we have to think the other way around. The GDC process needs us. At the moment, the process has been conducted in New York by the people that is following the United Nations General Assembly, that in most cases are not very well connected. I would not say more than that, but at least they are not very well connected with the reality in the world. And the only place where ideas can be tested, can be put on the reality, can be checked, is this. The IGF, during these 20 years, we have all together built something that is very valuable. Not only the NRI network, that is very important because it gives the possibility to consult directly in each country of the world, or mostly of the country of the world in the regional level, what can be done, what cannot be done. But also we have the dynamic coalitions. That means vested interest with a specific purpose that stress the specific aspect of the internet governance problematics. And we have also the policy network. Not only because I’m chair of one of the policy network, but the policy network is a place where you can grassroots collecting best practices that exist. And this best practice can be eventually used to contaminate the. rest of the world. So we have free tools that are the only ones that can bring down to earth the principles that are in the global digital compact. If this will not happen, then there will be another negotiation in New York about international treaties that are trying to regulate something. You remember Gulliver’s travels, the people that were up in the world, in the sky and they were not seeing the earth and they were deciding for the earth. They need us. We have just simple to remember them. Thank you.

Jennifer Chung: Thank You Giacomo. I think Amrita had a very quick response as well and then we’ll go to Pedro online.

Amrita Choudhury: Thank you so much Jim. Jimson, just to respond to your point while I don’t have your entire answer, is perhaps you could refer to a document which the MAG IGF working group on strategy has prepared as a vision document of what the IGF can do to support the various processes. Like for example be an effective coordination space for different follow-ups on digital policies. The policy network on AI is already having a lot of discussions so it could be further enhanced. So not only for Jimson, the others also could look at this document which talks about what the IGF could do and how it can strengthen and how it can help. That anyone can look at and it’s available in the IGF website.

Jennifer Chung: Thank you Amrita for stressing that publication, very recent publication of the working group on strategies document. I’d like to go to Pedro who has some interventions from online.

Pedro Lana: Thanks Jennifer. We have two questions and one comment that were made through the chat. The first one is from Julio Casaguenas from Columbia IGF. He is asking what recommendations will you highlight from your local experience to bring the results of your discussion to government? and decision makers. We also have a question from the IGF Ghana group. What strategies can NRIs use to involve underrepresented groups, such as women, youth, and marginalized communities in digital government? Then we have comments by Wisdom Donkor. He says, to resolve the capacity issues of the IGF secretariat, the force should focus on increasing financial resources through diversified funding and grants, enhancing staffing via recruitment and secondments, and strengthening operational capacity by upgrading infrastructure and outsourcing non-core functions. Staff capacity can be improved through training and knowledge-sharing programs, while community involvement can be boosted by leveraging volunteers, interns, and partnerships. Streamlined governance, stakeholder feedback mechanisms, and advocacy efforts to promote the IGF’s mission are essential to secure broader support and ensure the secretariat can make its growing demands effective. Then we have another two comments, but we will leave that after the on-site participations.

Jennifer Chung: Thank you, Pedro. I think I do see a hand online, if we can actually get to the vocal intervention. If you can unmute our participant who has their hand up online.

Pedro Lana: I will ask tech to unmute, but it takes a few seconds. I think we can get on-site participation while this is happening.

Audience: Hello?

Jennifer Chung: Yes, please go ahead.

Audience: Hello, I am Sumit Bhutne. I am not income on-site. I am online participant, all event full. Fully participate in good webinars. So internally, problem. So I have only events participate text, and necessary event to participate in mention create event, STD and GDC. But he have no admin support on body in today, so I started to permanently delete in events. But I have to achieve to, I am create CRI, and I can register in members, in event and fields, to participate on good debates and unlikely is involvement much entered room is unlikely they favour in text, so I not participate in full line, but I go remark to all event and debates. Thank you all to introduce to myself, myself Sumit Bhutte, I am UN and UN membership, but I like to support. Thank you.

Jennifer Chung: Thank you very much. And I think we will now turn back to the participants on the floor. I do see that there is a line. Our next speaker, please.

Myanmar Youth IGF: Hello, everyone. Thank you, Jennifer, for giving a chance to speak. And also thank you all panelists for sharing your experiences. And anyway, this is Pyo from Myanmar, and I am the co-coordinator of the UIGF Myanmar and South Asia UIGF. I would like to share my experience why we are trying to create a better environment for all the participants. So I would like to start by saying that we have been trying to, you know, foster the collaboration and trying to sustain the youth initiative during this year, firstly. It has been challenging a lot to us at the local level to foster the collaboration because of our current situation and even it is difficult to do so because of the COVID-19 situation, so we have difficulty to define, we have a challenge to define the government statehood in this state but so far as YGF Myanmar, we mostly focus on the capacity building and also trying to get more input from the different regions and states or different regions, so we are trying to get more input from the different regions, so that was even though all of our, we started our youth initiative with 11 organizing committee members. It is getting, like, it’s likely to be many young people have their own challenges, like fulfilling the basic need and continuing their work, so we are trying to get more input from the different regions and also, we have only few people of the young professional, so we are facing the challenge and even within the team to collaborate and finding resources and also sharing the time among us to make this happen yearly. It has been always a challenge to devise design and both in terms of import SNF concept and to mandate in every regions in Thailand, so we recognize the inimity of the or find the final result as we are not registered under any, you know, any title at local. And also, when we try to initiate, like a self-region you initiated, the public is very clear that we already have Asia-Pacific YMGF. We wanted to put more concrete input and feed into related to the internet cases and issue what are happening at the self-regional level as well. For that purpose, we try to gather the organizing committee members, and this year we could make and establish a very first and foremost South Asia YMGF forum. Luckily, with the support of the United Nations IGF Secretaries and also South Asia IGF Secretaries as well as other supporters like IGFSA, we could smoothly organize our very first and foremost self-regional YMGF forum this year. But so far, they are still having the challenge for starting the collaboration among the youth community in the South Asia region, because maybe this is maybe because of this is our very first year, and we need to think about what would be the best way to approach the other countries like Malaysia, Laos, and also Vietnam to invite youth committee members on board in our committee. And that would be great if someone who are from this country also attending at the YMGF. and we will be happy to talk more about our collaboration for next year. Thank you.

Jennifer Chung: Thank you, Pio, for bringing to light how difficult it is for many in many different parts of the world to even meet, to be able to meet, to be able to discuss these issues. Thank you for also highlighting that Youth IGF in Myanmar is still very vibrant and they have their meetings, and congratulations to the Southeast Asian Youth IGF for their initial meeting. I think both Jimson and several others, including Pio, has mentioned the IGF Support Association, which allows for some seed funding to give to initiatives just starting out to be able to meet, to be able to have platforms to meet. I am going to go to the next person in the floor, our next speaker, and then I will go to Pedro online. Please go ahead.

Audience: Thank you so much, the panellists, for your talk, and my name is Naza, Dr Naza Nicholas Kirama from the Tanzania IGF, and I would like to make about 7,000 girls on STEM. We have been able to connect about 800 citizens to affordable and meaningful Internet, and 10 schools have been connected to broadband Internet, and also with the same kind of project, we have been able to…

Jennifer Chung: Thank you, thank you Naza so much for telling us all the good work that Tanzania IGF is doing, and of course… your takeaway for that you know that it takes a village to raise a child, it takes multi-stakeholder model to make all of this work. I’d like now to turn to Pedro who has several comments online. Pedro, please.

Pedro Lana: Yes, I will read two of them. I also noticed that NetMundial and the Sao Paulo guidelines were mentioned and I believe that we have two people from that were involved in the work on site, on the line. I just mentioned that to Jennifer but first the comments that were made on the chat. The first one was from Peter Kinkoye, a convener for the Liberia IGF. He wanted to present a point on the progress of the Liberia IGF that has been hosted in this fifth edition this year with governments and all local stakeholders fully involved in a multi-stakeholder style and have increased their advocacy level to see this level of progress with policy and personal data and cybersecurity strategies that are currently being developed in their governments. This regulatory participation has led to the validation of the draft, the draft Personal Data Protection Act and they intend to sustain the advocacy and discussions on national issues with the collaboration being sustained with support of a vibrant national IGF secretariat supported by the Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications. This collective effort has led to a very visible Liberia IGF and also Liberia hosting its first sub-regional consultative forum on the MIU region for the Liberia with support of the UN IGF and ICANN in the region. We also have a comment from Azeem Sajjad about the importance of internal governance at government level being realized in addition to efforts of individuals already recognized at the global level. The Pakistani School of Internal Governance is playing its role since 10 years in different cities of the country. There is an inventory of work related to Internet policies that has also been keeping the pace, in addition to planning, to restructure departments for enablement of effective digital governance ecosystems. There is a challenge to retain the talents of this space and it’s hard to ensure engagement of individuals after capacity building. Universal meaningful connection as well as Internet censorship for information fake news etc are big challenges nowadays. It has been extremely hard for especially governments to keep the balance in digital policies. AI has been the next big thing which is a big challenge for governments in terms of capacity building, development, deployment, management and issues of governance and oversight. So with those two questions I think we can go back on site. So back to you Jennifer.

Jennifer Chung: Thank you very much Pedro. As you can see there is so many good inputs and we have so little time together. I go back to the floor now. I see there still is a line. If you could please keep your intervention within a minute that would be very much appreciated. Next speaker please.

Pacific IGF: Hello. Thank you Jennifer. This is Andrew Molivare representing the regulators office in Vanuatu and also chair of Pacific IGF. The regulators office has been supporting Pacific IGF over the last years. That started in 2011 and I want to acknowledge my Pacific colleagues who have started this initiative in the Pacific back then. Today the Pacific IGF secretariat is with the Pacific Island chapter of the Internet Society. This year Pacific IGF was held in Wellington and our theme was strengthening digital governance, resilience and resilience in the Pacific Islands. And we were supported by the AUDA, the domain name Authority of Australia, and the .NZ, UNESCO and the European Union through the CAID project. And I think there’s some relevance in the theme that we had this year. As we speak now, I had disasters struck two days ago in my country and caused a total outage of communications for the last two days. And thankfully, we are thankful for the Leo technology that currently we have Starlink, some Starlink set up in the country, and also the government is in discussion with Starlink to set up public Internet access around the town. So it’s becoming a reality and resilience for us. There’s two things probably I want to highlight here before I finish. One is I think we need more support in policy frameworks for responses in times of disaster in the Pacific Islands. As you know, for the last few years, we have had a lot of disasters like the volcano eruptions in Tonga and other cyclones, and the disasters are so frequent. And I think we need the right policies in this direction. And the second and last point is I believe probably there’s room to formalize the NRIs to align with the global IGF and increase support as we look forward for the next 20 years. Just to let you know that Pacific IGF 2025 will be in Apia, Samoa, and feel free to join us. Thank you.

Jennifer Chung: Thank you very much. It’s good to hear from the Pacific IGF point of view and congratulations to Samoa for hosting the next edition. of the Pacific IGF. I know that we have two more here in the ground, and we also have one online. So we’ll take one more speaker here with us. Please keep your intervention very short, within a minute if you can. Thank you so much.

Hong Kong Youth IGF: Thank you very much, Jennifer, and everyone. This is Jasmine Emanco from Hong Kong YIGF. So we have been documenting our achievement on a report. So you can always go to HKYIGF.asia to see it. But then I wanted to share about the challenge that I find it very critical. And it’s not, I believe it’s not only the challenge that we face, it’s about to engage with the government. Despite that, this year, after several years of not having YIGF in Hong Kong, we make a theme called smart economy. We try to speak the language of government, but then we still find it difficult to get them engaged. So everything, you know, the multi-stakeholders that we engage in our HKYIGF, we have all the stakeholders except the government, which is a pity. So for me, I just want to share about this challenge, and hopefully we can get some insight and success case from the other regions. Thank you very much.

Jennifer Chung: Thank you very much, Jasmine. Thank you for giving the views from the Hong Kong Youth IGF. I’d like to go straight to online. Pedro, I believe we have an intervention.

Pedro Lana: Yes, we have an intervention from Nigel Hickson, from the UK. Nigo, I think that you already have permission to open your mic. There we go.

Nigel Hickson: Yes, thank you very much, and good afternoon. It’s an absolute pleasure to take part. I’m a member of the UK IGF. It’s just wonderful to hear so many in our eyes. I’ll be very brief. Three points. I think the Global Digital Compact has set us on the right track. on the right path as we go forward recognizing the immense value of the IGF. We need to build on that in the WSIS Plus 20 process, and we should take nothing for granted. It’s a new debate. Secondly, the UN IGF has done such immense work. I think it should be credited with a longer mandate, a mandate that extends beyond 10 or 20 years. It has so much to contribute to the internet debate. Thirdly, the NRIs need to be recognized in the WSIS Plus 20 resolution that’s adopted. The NRIs are the legitimacy of multi-stakeholder processes. The NRIs are an inspiration, and they need to be recognized for the tremendous work they do in bringing people together to have discussions and coordinate and contribute to the challenges and opportunities we have today. Thank you.

Jennifer Chung: Thank you, Nigel. In the interest of time, our last speaker is here in the ground. Please keep your interventions within one minute. Thank you very much.

North African IGF: Thank you so much. I’m Ahmad Farak, chair of the North African IGF, and allow me to make my intervention in Arabic. Peace be upon you, ladies and gentlemen. I’m very proud today about two things here. We are an Arabic country that is actually hosting this IGF. This is the second time, if I remember very well. I think Egypt was there. It was in Egypt the first one in 2001 in the North African IGF. We have a very good position there. We are actually cooperating with a lot of entities in our countries and in the northern of Africa. The Arabic participation here that we see, that is an excellent one, in fact. It is very good, really, as I said, the good preparation, and that it is hosted here in an Arabic country. And so that, too, and all the works that we are doing to unify our efforts. My friends here, Dr. Shafik Misharik is a participant. We have organized a forum before this forum, in fact, to prepare for the Arabic participation. And the forum for the youth of Africa, we have challenges. We have dreams. We try all the time to enhance the people of concern. The most important thing is the programs of capacity building. We try all the time, the trainings all the time, at different times, like cyber security, and marine technology, and other technologies. And also bringing internet to school, and there will be also different other efforts. We also give trainings for women and youth. Also, we have an idea to give trainings also for the elderly, so that to make them aware of these new technologies, and to make them a part of this digital world. All these dreams that we are dreaming today, there is, we have an obstacle, big obstacle, that is the financial obstacle. I thank, let me thank everybody. I, and others, they are trying to help us through their programs. But all the time, with these dreams that we have here or elsewhere, it is the monetary issue all the time. Thank you very much.

Jennifer Chung: Thank you very much, and it’s very, very important. Our final speaker on the floor, if you can keep your intervention within one minute, that would be so much appreciated.

Audience: Okay, thank you so much. Before I start ask my question, let me introduce myself. I am Mary Henrica, I am from Timor-Leste, and I am one of the fellow IGF fellow. Before I start my question, here I also want to say thank you to the IGF to give me the opportunity to attend the IGF and to give the opportunity for the Timor-Leste people also to attend the IGF. Okay, this is my question. Timor-Leste right now doesn’t have a local IGF, so how can we establish an IGF in our country and what we need to prepare first to have our own local IGF in our country? Thank you.

Jennifer Chung: Thank you so much. Welcome from Timor-Leste, coming here to the Global IGF. If you need information on how to start an IGF, please contact the IGF secretariat, they will be more than happy. We would be more than happy to help you now that we are over time. I would like to remind everyone, we are still taking in all your inputs. Please send them to the IGF secretariat so all of your inputs can be captured for this session as well. I’m going to end with, of course, all our speakers in reverse order this time. So Lillian, the one key takeaway, 15 seconds each, please, Lillian.

Lilian Chamorro Rojas: Thank you very much, everybody, for sharing your experiences, your ideas. I just wanted to conclude with saying that this governance model that we have built all together and that we have all made our own is not just part of an international system, it’s also local. And this is an invitation to value diversity, experience, learnings, and to take advantage of the next year so that we can renovate ourselves, be creative, and propose new actions and ask the right questions for the GDC and the global community. I’m going to turn it over to Charles to talk a little bit more about the role of multi-stakeholderism and how it plays out in W3C’s.

Jennifer Chung: Charles?

Charles Noir: Thanks for a great discussion. This was fabulous. I think what I’m taking away from this is multi-stakeholderism is a practice. It needs to be practiced regularly. It needs to be strengthened and it needs to be evolved. We all have a role in that. And particularly coming from a stakeholder group, if you want to be a stakeholder, you need to have a sense of community.

Jennifer Chung: Thank you, Charles. Amrita?

Amrita Choudhury: Thank you. I would say engage, build capacity, work together to create common dialogues, and to protect what we all cherish, the IGF.

Jennifer Chung: Thank you, Amrita. Lillian?

Lillian Nalwoga: I would like to say there’s really no one-size-fits-all, and we’ve seen that happening in so many different ways, so we need to continue being innovative, creative, to have meaningful participation, whether you’re approaching from organising from a stakeholder aspect or from an issue perspective, we need to be able to be more creative and more innovative.

Jennifer Chung: Thank you, Lillian. Giacomo?

Giacomo Mazzone: Yes, there was a French politician 100 years ago, that was saying the war is too serious to left it to the generals. I think that we need now to decline to the Internet. The Internet is too serious to be left only to the governments. I think that only through the richness of the contribution of all the stakeholders, we can get through. Thank you.

Jennifer Chung: Thank you, Giacomo. Now, back to our home region, Chafic.

Chafic Chaya: Thank you so much, Jennifer. I’ll make my closing remarks in English. First, it’s really appreciated for all these NRIs who came from different regions to speak about their challenges and their opportunities and what they are facing. So on behalf of the Lebanon IGF, I’m happy to help these NRIs to speak about their challenges and their opportunities and what they are facing. to establish and start their NRIs because of the experience that we have during our establishment of the Lebanon IGF. Second, no doubt that the inclusive, open, multi-stakeholder approach is not an option. It’s foundational to build first a community with common vision and objectives that is reflected later in NRIs. And third, as we say as technical people, the internet is the network of networks. So here, the global IGF is the network of the NRIs networks and happy to help anyone that can take our experience and tailor it to their experiences at their national and regional level. Thank you.

Jennifer Chung: Thank you, Shafik. What a perfect way to end this session. I hope it has given you just a small taste of all the really good work that the more than 174 NRIs across the globe do. Please engage with your local IGFs in your region, in your economy, in your home country. Can we give us all a round of applause, all for the work of the IGF and also the NRIs.

Agreement Points

Importance of multi-stakeholder model in internet governance

Chafic Chaya

Giacomo Mazzone

Charles Noir

Lilian Chamorro Rojas

Transformation from conventional to multi-stakeholder governance in MENA region

European institutions promoting consensus-building and multi-stakeholder approach

Multi-stakeholder model crucial for technical operation of internet

Local and regional IGFs contribute to global internet governance

Speakers agree on the crucial role of the multi-stakeholder model in shaping internet governance, emphasizing its importance for technical operations, policy-making, and regional development.

Value of National and Regional IGF Initiatives (NRIs)

Lillian Nalwoga

Amrita Choudhury

Charles Noir

Lilian Chamorro Rojas

Capacity building initiatives driving multi-stakeholder engagement in Africa

Diverse stakeholder inclusion needed in Asia-Pacific region

Value of NRIs in informing national policymaking

Local and regional IGFs contribute to global internet governance

Speakers highlight the importance of NRIs in promoting capacity building, stakeholder engagement, and informing national and regional internet governance policies.

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize the need for capacity building and inclusive participation in their respective regions to strengthen internet governance processes.

Lillian Nalwoga

Amrita Choudhury

Capacity building initiatives driving multi-stakeholder engagement in Africa

Diverse stakeholder inclusion needed in Asia-Pacific region

Both speakers view the WSIS+20 process as an opportunity to strengthen and extend the IGF’s mandate, emphasizing the importance of recognizing and supporting NRIs.

Charles Noir

Nigel Hickson

Opportunity to renew commitment to multi-stakeholderism through WSIS+20

Need to strengthen IGF mandate beyond 10-20 years

Call for NRIs to be recognized in WSIS+20 resolution

Unexpected Consensus

Challenges faced by NRIs across different regions

Ahmed Farag

Jasmine Ko

Andrew Molivurae

Phyo Thiri L.

Financial sustainability challenges for NRI secretariats

Difficulty engaging government stakeholders in some regions

Need for policy frameworks on disaster response in Pacific islands

Challenges in fostering youth collaboration across South Asia

Despite coming from diverse regions, these speakers unexpectedly highlight similar challenges faced by NRIs, including financial constraints, stakeholder engagement difficulties, and the need for specialized policy frameworks.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The main areas of agreement include the importance of the multi-stakeholder model in internet governance, the value of NRIs in capacity building and policy-making, and the need to strengthen the IGF’s mandate through the WSIS+20 process. There is also consensus on the challenges faced by NRIs across different regions.

Consensus level

There is a high level of consensus among speakers on the fundamental principles of internet governance and the role of NRIs. This strong agreement suggests a unified vision for the future of internet governance, which could facilitate more effective collaboration and policy-making at both regional and global levels. However, the shared challenges identified by NRIs from different regions indicate that there are still significant obstacles to overcome in implementing these principles effectively across diverse contexts.

Different Viewpoints

Approach to engaging government stakeholders

Charles Noir

Jasmine Ko

National and Regional IGF Initiatives (NRIs) are seen as important sources of information and guidance for national policymakers. They provide a platform for engaging the community and informing decision-making on internet policy issues.

Some NRIs face challenges in engaging government stakeholders in their multi-stakeholder processes. This lack of government participation can hinder the effectiveness of internet governance discussions and outcomes.

While Charles Noir emphasizes the value of NRIs in informing national policymaking, Jasmine Ko highlights the difficulty in engaging government stakeholders in some regions.

Unexpected Differences

Financial sustainability of NRIs

Ahmed Farag

Charles Noir

NRIs face significant financial obstacles in sustaining their operations and achieving their goals. This financial challenge is a major barrier to realizing the full potential of NRIs in promoting internet governance discussions and capacity building.

The WSIS+20 review process is seen as an opportunity to reinforce and dedicate a commitment to multi-stakeholderism for the next decade. It is viewed as a chance to recognize the importance of the multi-stakeholder model in internet governance.

While the Ahmed Farag highlights financial sustainability as a major challenge for NRIs, Charles Noir focuses on the opportunity to reinforce multi-stakeholderism through WSIS+20 without addressing the financial concerns. This difference in focus on immediate operational challenges versus long-term policy opportunities is unexpected.

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement revolve around the challenges faced by different NRIs, particularly in engaging government stakeholders and ensuring financial sustainability. There are also differences in focus regarding the immediate operational needs of NRIs versus long-term policy opportunities.

difference_level

The level of disagreement among speakers is relatively low, with most differences stemming from varied regional experiences and priorities rather than fundamental disagreements on the value of multi-stakeholderism or the importance of NRIs. These differences highlight the diverse challenges faced by NRIs across different regions and underscore the need for flexible, context-specific approaches to internet governance.

Partial Agreements

Both speakers agree on the importance of inclusive participation in NRIs, but they differ in their focus. Lillian Nalwoga emphasizes tracking outcomes, while Amrita Choudhury focuses on increasing diverse stakeholder participation.

Lillian Nalwoga

Amrita Choudhury

There is a need to develop and track outcomes from NRI meetings to demonstrate their impact. This involves producing key outcome documents from meetings and tracking their implementation at country and regional levels.

The Asia-Pacific region requires the inclusion of diverse stakeholders in internet governance discussions due to its vast diversity in countries, cultures, languages, economies, and levels of technology adoption. Efforts are being made to increase participation from underrepresented groups and economies.

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize the need for capacity building and inclusive participation in their respective regions to strengthen internet governance processes.

Lillian Nalwoga

Amrita Choudhury

Capacity building initiatives driving multi-stakeholder engagement in Africa

Diverse stakeholder inclusion needed in Asia-Pacific region

Both speakers view the WSIS+20 process as an opportunity to strengthen and extend the IGF’s mandate, emphasizing the importance of recognizing and supporting NRIs.

Charles Noir

Nigel Hickson

Opportunity to renew commitment to multi-stakeholderism through WSIS+20

Need to strengthen IGF mandate beyond 10-20 years

Call for NRIs to be recognized in WSIS+20 resolution

Key Takeaways

The multi-stakeholder model is crucial for effective internet governance and should be strengthened

National and Regional Internet Governance Forum (NRI) initiatives play a vital role in shaping global internet governance

Capacity building and inclusivity are key challenges for many NRIs, especially in developing regions

Financial sustainability is a major concern for many NRI initiatives

The upcoming WSIS+20 review presents an opportunity to reinforce commitment to multi-stakeholderism and the IGF

There is a need to better integrate NRI inputs into global internet governance processes

Resolutions and Action Items

Engage NRIs in consultation during 2025 on the future institutional structure of the IGF

Recognize and formalize NRIs in the WSIS+20 resolution

Strengthen the IGF mandate beyond 10-20 years

Develop mechanisms to track outcomes from NRI meetings

Increase support for policy frameworks on disaster response in Pacific islands

Unresolved Issues

How to effectively engage government stakeholders in some regions

How to ensure financial sustainability for NRI initiatives

How to better integrate youth voices in internet governance processes

How to establish new national IGFs in countries that don’t yet have them

How to balance diverse regional needs and priorities in global internet governance

Suggested Compromises

Use the IGF as a platform to support implementation of the Global Digital Compact while maintaining its broader mandate

Balance between global coordination and local/regional autonomy for NRIs

Combine capacity building initiatives with policy discussions to address both immediate and long-term needs

The IGF at the global level, but Nenad was mentioning that it is a problem at the local level as well, is usually caught in a catch-22 situation between the lack of resources and the difficulty to articulate an ambitious vision, because if you don’t have the resources, it’s hard to have a vision and implement it. But if you don’t have the vision, you cannot muster the resources.

speaker

Bertrand de La Chapelle

reason

This comment insightfully identifies a core challenge facing IGFs at all levels – the interplay between vision and resources. It frames the issue in a way that highlights the complexity and interdependence of these factors.

impact

This comment shifted the discussion to focus more on the practical challenges of sustaining IGFs, leading to further comments about funding and support mechanisms. It added a layer of pragmatic analysis to the more abstract discussions of multi-stakeholder models.

The GDC process needs us. At the moment, the process has been conducted in New York by the people that is following the United Nations General Assembly, that in most cases are not very well connected… with the reality in the world. And the only place where ideas can be tested, can be put on the reality, can be checked, is this.

speaker

Giacomo Mazzone

reason

This comment provocatively challenges the top-down approach of global digital governance, asserting the crucial role of IGFs in grounding policy discussions in real-world realities. It highlights the unique value proposition of the IGF ecosystem.

impact

This comment reframed the relationship between IGFs and global governance processes, positioning IGFs as essential rather than peripheral. It sparked further discussion about how to strengthen the link between local/regional IGFs and global policy processes.

We have been able to connect about 800 citizens to affordable and meaningful Internet, and 10 schools have been connected to broadband Internet

speaker

Nazar Nicholas Kirama

reason

This comment provides concrete examples of the tangible impact that IGFs can have on digital inclusion. It moves the discussion from abstract principles to real-world outcomes.

impact

This comment grounded the discussion in practical achievements, leading to more sharing of specific initiatives and outcomes from different regions. It helped illustrate the real-world relevance of IGFs beyond policy discussions.

Timor-Leste right now doesn’t have a local IGF, so how can we establish an IGF in our country and what we need to prepare first to have our own local IGF in our country?

speaker

Mary Henrica

reason

This question from a participant highlights the ongoing process of expanding the IGF network and the interest from underrepresented regions. It brings attention to the practical steps needed to establish new IGFs.

impact

This comment shifted the discussion towards practical advice and support for establishing new IGFs, emphasizing the role of the IGF Secretariat and existing IGFs in supporting expansion. It highlighted the dynamic, growing nature of the IGF ecosystem.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by grounding abstract principles in practical realities, highlighting both challenges and achievements of IGFs at various levels. They shifted the conversation from describing the multi-stakeholder model to critically examining its implementation and impact. The discussion evolved to emphasize the bidirectional relationship between local/regional IGFs and global governance processes, the need for sustainable resources, and the tangible outcomes of IGF initiatives. Overall, these comments deepened the analysis of the IGF ecosystem’s role, challenges, and potential in shaping internet governance.

How can NRIs effectively implement the Global Digital Compact in their respective regions and countries?

speaker

Jimson Olufoye

explanation

This is important to ensure the principles of the Global Digital Compact are applied at local and regional levels.

How can the sustainability of IGF secretariats be improved, particularly in terms of financial resources?

speaker

Nina from Ivory Coast

explanation

Sustainable funding is crucial for the ongoing operations and effectiveness of IGF initiatives.

What strategies can be used to effectively engage governments in IGF processes, particularly in regions where government participation is lacking?

speaker

Jasmine Ko

explanation

Government engagement is crucial for comprehensive multi-stakeholder dialogue and policy impact.

How can the IGF and NRIs be more effectively used as key venues for advocacy?

speaker

Jennifer Chung (moderator)

explanation

Maximizing the impact of IGF initiatives for advocacy purposes can lead to more effective policy outcomes.

What policy frameworks are needed for disaster response in Pacific Islands, particularly related to internet and communication technologies?

speaker

Andrew Molivurae

explanation

Disaster preparedness and response are critical for maintaining connectivity in vulnerable island nations.

How can the IGF’s mandate be extended beyond the current timeframe, and what would be the implications of a longer-term mandate?

speaker

Nigel Hickson

explanation

A longer mandate could provide more stability and allow for long-term planning and impact.

What is the process for establishing a new national IGF, and what preparations are needed?

speaker

Mary Henrica from Timor-Leste

explanation

This information is crucial for expanding the IGF network to new countries and regions.

How can the multi-stakeholder model be further evolved and strengthened in practice?

speaker

Charles Noir

explanation

Continuous improvement of the multi-stakeholder approach is essential for effective internet governance.

Summary

This discussion focused on ensuring an inclusive and rights-respecting digital future, particularly in the context of implementing the UN Global Digital Compact (GDC) and the WSIS+20 review. Speakers emphasized the importance of multi-stakeholder engagement in digital governance, highlighting the need to involve diverse voices from civil society, the private sector, technical community, and academia.

A key theme was the challenge of achieving meaningful multi-stakeholder participation in UN processes, especially in New York-based negotiations. Several speakers noted that while the GDC emphasizes multi-stakeholderism, its development process was not sufficiently inclusive. The Internet Governance Forum (IGF) was highlighted as a valuable platform for multi-stakeholder dialogue, with calls to strengthen its role and secure sustainable funding.

Participants stressed the importance of capacity building to enable effective engagement from underrepresented groups, particularly from the Global South. The need for a multilingual internet and consideration of local contexts in digital governance was also emphasized. Speakers advocated for focusing on national and regional initiatives, such as national IGFs, to complement global processes.

The Freedom Online Coalition (FOC) was recognized as an important platform for promoting human rights online and facilitating multi-stakeholder collaboration. Speakers called for continued support of the FOC and its Advisory Network. The discussion also touched on the role of the technical community in ensuring that governance discussions are grounded in technical realities.

Overall, the conversation highlighted the complex challenges of achieving inclusive digital governance and the need for continued efforts to evolve multi-stakeholder processes to address emerging digital issues.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– The importance of multi-stakeholder engagement in internet governance and digital policy processes

– Challenges with inclusivity and meaningful participation, especially for stakeholders from the Global South

– The role of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and other forums in facilitating inclusive dialogue

– Implementation of the Global Digital Compact and WSIS+20 review process

– Building capacity and expertise among diverse stakeholders to enable effective participation

Overall purpose:

The discussion aimed to explore how to ensure an inclusive and rights-respecting digital future through multi-stakeholder engagement in global internet governance processes, with a focus on implementing the Global Digital Compact and preparing for the WSIS+20 review.

Tone:

The tone was largely constructive and collaborative, with speakers building on each other’s points. There was a sense of shared purpose in promoting inclusive governance, though some frustration was expressed about the limitations of multilateral UN processes in New York. The tone became more action-oriented towards the end, with speakers emphasizing the need for concrete steps to improve stakeholder engagement and capacity building.

Speakers

– Jacco Pepijn-Baljet: Senior Policy Officer, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Kingdom of the Netherlands

– Ernst Noorman: Ambassador for Cyber Affairs, Kingdom of the Netherlands

– Filippo Pierozzi: Office of the UN Tech Envoy

– Rasmus Lumi:Director General of the Department of International Organizations and Human Rights, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Estonia

– Anja Gengo: IGF Secretariat

– Emilar Gandhi: Global Head of Stakeholder Engagement, META

– Sabhanaz Rashid Diya: Executive Director, TechGlobal Initiative, member of the FOC Advisory Network

– Adeboye Adegoke: Paradigm Initiative

– Olaf Kolfman: Executive-level Advisor and Spokesperson, ISOC

– Fiona Alexander: American University

Additional speakers:

– Audience

Expanded Summary: Ensuring an Inclusive and Rights-Respecting Digital Future

This discussion focused on the critical challenge of ensuring an inclusive and rights-respecting digital future, particularly in the context of implementing the UN Global Digital Compact (GDC) and the upcoming WSIS+20 review. The conversation brought together diverse perspectives from government representatives, international organisations, civil society, the private sector, and the technical community.

Setting the Context: Multi-stakeholder Engagement and Global Initiatives

Ernst Noorman, the Ambassador for Cyber Affairs of the Netherlands and current chair of the Freedom Online Coalition (FOC), set the tone for the discussion. He emphasized that a multi-stakeholder approach is crucial for addressing complex digital issues and highlighted the recent adoption of the Global Digital Compact. Noorman stressed the need for evolving multi-stakeholder governance and creating an appealing narrative to engage diverse stakeholders. He framed the GDC as integrating human rights, sustainable development, and technology governance in an interconnected way.

Rasmus Lumi, representing Estonia as the incoming Chair of the FOC for 2025, echoed the importance of multi-stakeholder approaches. He noted the increasing complexity of the UN ecosystem and emphasized the need for inclusive governance that respects human rights, democracy, and the rule of law. Lumi suggested that the FOC could play a role in GDC implementation aligned with these principles.

The Role of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF)

The Internet Governance Forum was highlighted as a valuable platform for multi-stakeholder dialogue on digital policy issues. Anja Gengo from the IGF Secretariat provided insights into the forum’s growth, citing statistics on increased participation. She emphasized the IGF’s role as an inclusive space for dialogue and its adaptation to emerging technologies like AI. Gengo also stressed the need for multi-disciplinary approaches in addressing digital governance challenges.

However, there was recognition that the IGF needs strengthening to enhance its effectiveness. Fiona Alexander from American University stressed the need for sustained funding to strengthen the IGF’s capacity, while others called for evolving the forum to produce more actionable outcomes.

Challenges in Multi-stakeholder Processes

The discussion highlighted significant challenges in achieving meaningful multi-stakeholder participation, especially in UN-based processes. Fiona Alexander provided a critical perspective, stating that “New York processes, by design and by structure, are limited in their way to involve stakeholders. And I don’t see a meaningful way to change that.” This unexpected consensus on the limitations of UN processes in New York sparked a broader conversation about alternative approaches and the importance of local and national initiatives.

Sabhanaz Rashid Diya, Executive Director of the TechGlobal Initiative, and Adeboye Adegoke from Paradigm Initiative highlighted power asymmetries in multi-stakeholder processes. They emphasized the need for capacity building to enable effective engagement from underrepresented groups, particularly from the Global South. Diya made a thought-provoking comment on the importance of meaningful participation: “Even when we are in these kinds of spaces, and I think that’s where the technical community, the private sector, governments have a tremendous role to play in terms of how do we ensure that when groups have access to international spaces, are sitting on these tables, they’re active.”

Private Sector and Technical Community Perspectives

Emilar Gandhi from META provided insights into the private sector’s role, highlighting META’s human rights policy and employee training. She emphasized the importance of stakeholder engagement and creating intentional spaces for diverse voices in digital governance discussions.

Olaf Kolkman from the Internet Society offered a technical community perspective, making a memorable analogy comparing multi-stakeholder mechanisms to large language models: “If you train a large language model and you provide it with incomplete input, it will start to hallucinate. And I think that the multi-stakeholder mechanisms, if you do not provide all the inputs that you have at the table, the output of the process will be a hallucination.” This reinforced the importance of including diverse perspectives, including technical expertise, in governance discussions. Kolkman also noted that the technical community often speaks a different “language” and stressed the need for mutual understanding among stakeholders.

Local and National Initiatives

Several speakers, including Adeboye Adegoke and Olaf Kolkman, stressed the importance of focusing on national and regional initiatives, such as national IGFs, to complement global processes. There was a shared viewpoint that local and national processes are key for implementing digital governance principles and engaging stakeholders effectively. Fiona Alexander particularly emphasized this point, suggesting a focus on local and national processes as a way to overcome the limitations of UN-based mechanisms.

Conclusion and Future Directions

The discussion concluded with a recognition of the complex challenges in achieving inclusive digital governance and the need for continued efforts to evolve multi-stakeholder processes. Key takeaways included the crucial role of multi-stakeholder engagement, the importance of local and national processes, the need for capacity building, and the significance of technical expertise in governance discussions.

Several unresolved issues were identified, including how to effectively integrate multi-stakeholder input into UN processes, balance multilateral and multi-stakeholder approaches, address power asymmetries within multi-stakeholder processes, and ensure meaningful participation from marginalized groups.

Moving forward, participants suggested focusing on renewing and strengthening the IGF mandate in the upcoming WSIS+20 review, securing sustained funding for the IGF, and encouraging stakeholders to engage in local and national digital governance processes. The discussion underscored the ongoing need for collaborative efforts to shape an inclusive and rights-respecting digital future.

Jacco Pepijn-Baljet: for this year’s IGF. The session is called Ensuring an Inclusive and Right-Respecting Digital Future, and the session seeks to allow input from various stakeholder and regional groups on the role of the multistakeholder community in the implementation of the UN Global Digital Compact and the WSIS plus 20 review. Without further ado, I will give the floor to Mr. Ernst-Norman, Ambassador for Cyber Affairs of the Netherlands for his opening remarks.

Ernst Noorman: Thank you very much, Jakob. And welcome to all the friends of the Freedom Online Coalition, esteemed panelists, and, of course, also our online audience. Good afternoon, and thank you for joining us today at the open forum session of the Freedom Online Coalition. Today, we are going to talk about Ensuring an Inclusive and Right-Respecting Digital Future. The Netherlands organized this session in its role as the current Freedom Online Coalition chair. The Netherlands is one of the founders who created the Freedom Online Coalition in 2011 and acted as the first chair, and has been an honor for our country to have been chairing this ever more important coalition this year for the second time. And I’m delighted to see such a great variety of panelists to the roles that we see as essential for discussions on digital issues. We have experts from the FOC advisory network, civil society, private sector, the technical community, and the tech and voice office, and the IGF Secretariat present today. And last but not least, my colleague and friend from Estonia, Rasmus Lumi, who will be chairing our coalition in 2025. When I first started my role as a cyber ambassador for the Netherlands, they were telling me that 2025 would be an extremely important year for internet governance and human rights online. Therefore, I must thank Estonia from the bottom of my heart for their willingness to take over our FOC chairship next year. At the same time, in 2024, we have not been calmly waiting for the Estonians to save us. The adoption of the Global Digital Compact at the Summit of the Future has been a key milestone in our journey towards the WSIS Plus 20 review next year. The events we have been hosting with the FOC over the course of 2024 have been largely focused on laying the groundwork while preparing ourselves for these important negotiations. As most of you are familiar with the WSIS, we do not need to start the review negotiations with a blank slate. I’m going to use a term that most of you will have a love-hate relationship with, but we do have agreed language to work with. The principles, commitments, and actions in the Global Digital Compact are closely linked to the existing WSIS agreements. The Tunisia Agenda and the Geneva Plan of Action. The GDC sets out a vision for digital cooperation built on principles ingrained in sustainable development and human rights, both mutually dependent and reinforcing, as well as for global internet and AI governance. The GDC also acknowledges the role of the IGF as a primary multi-stakeholder platform for discussions on internet issues. Moreover, in April this year, the Sao Paulo Multi-Stakeholder Guidelines were adopted at the NetMundial Plus 10 conference. These underline the need to protect and get participation in internet and digital governance. And lastly, just this week, on the initiative of Canada, the FOC published a joint statement on the future of the multi-stakeholder approach at the United Nations. The statement recognizes that multi-stakeholder processes must evolve to address emerging and complex challenges. It is precisely this idea of evolving that I would like to address in the remainder of my remarks. Agreed language is no guarantee in today’s world. Characterized by geopolitical dynamics, economic power concentrations, a decline in internet freedom worldwide, and rapid technological development. In order to actually strengthen and evolve the multi-stakeholder governance of the internet and digital technologies, we will need to have an appealing narrative, a narrative underpinned by commitments and actions that actually do, one, keep discussions on technical issues within the technical domain, two, bridge the digital divides without reinforcing existing inequalities, three, strengthen the protection of human rights worldwide, online and offline, four, govern emerging digital technologies in a responsible and rights-respecting manner, while making the existing multi-stakeholder approach to internet governance more inclusive. This is no way an easy task. But we as the Netherlands and the broader Freedom Online Coalition believe that these commitments resonate around the world and are the best way to work towards a digital future for all of us. The 20-year review of WSIS is around the corner. And it will be up to us to ensure that it will continue to steer global digital cooperation and governance together with the implementation of the GDC. I hope the forum session will not only address those issues that are close to our hearts, but we want to defend human rights online, multistakeholder governance, and the IGF itself, but also those issues that need to evolve to ensure that the implementation of the GDC and the WSIS process remain fit for purpose also in 2025. While I have full confidence in Estonia, in my chair of the FOC, it does set me to that today is the very last event that we are organizing as a chair of the Freedom Online Coalition. Nikki of the USA, most of you know her, asked me last night what the most memorable event for me was during our FOC chairship. As this is our last event, I hope this will be the one. So without putting any pressure on all of you, I wish you all a very fruitful and inspirational discussion. Thank you very much. And back to Jakob Pepijn.

Jacco Pepijn-Baljet: Thank you very much, Mr. Norman, for your opening remark. We will now have a round through the panelists, through the different speakers. Each panelist will have about five minutes to answer a question related to their role in the multi-stakeholder approach to internet governance. And after that, we will have time for questions from the audience, followed by closing remarks from all the speakers. So without further ado, and also because Mr. Filippo from the Secretary General’s office, from the Office of the Tech Envoy, has to leave, unfortunately, already in half an hour, I will give the floor first to him. And Filippo, the implementation of the Global Digital Compact, so to ensure that it and other relevant processes maintain and are in alignment with international human rights law.

Filippo Pierozzi: Thanks, Jakob. And I would like also to acknowledge the statement from Ambassador Norman, and especially on the role of the Global Digital Compact, the role of IGF. I mean, I guess all of you would agree that if IGF didn’t exist, we would need to invent something like this. And this is also still a landing point of the Global Digital Compact, where most member states and all stakeholders found an agreement that the role of IGF and its convening role should be strengthened. Rather than weaken it, we count, I acknowledge also Director General Lumi, we count on the Freedom Online Coalition to work in this coalition building when it comes to the role of this multi-stakeholder forum. Now, the Global Digital Compact, and sorry, my body language, I’m trying to be in an open forum, trying to be as open as possible, and not turn my back on anyone. The Global Digital Compact is refreshing the agreement that member states found in 2005 with the Tunis Agenda, the principles, and introduces some areas that are new. It’s comprehensive. It’s comprehensive and has multi-stakeholder at the center. And most of you and several member states and even stakeholders ask me, hold on, that is an intergovernmental process. How can it be multi-stakeholder? And that is the tricky answer, the tricky question that we’ll need to answer. Because yes, the Global Digital Compact, as much as we exist, it’s an intergovernmental process. So something that I would like to see moving forward in both processes is to see a concerted effort from our side, from the United Nations, from member states to be as inclusive as possible from stakeholders. Again, even the concept of human rights that is the very core of this conversation developed and evolved. And as, again, Ambassador Norman said, it’s based on the sustainable development goals and human rights. If you’re going back to the Geneva Declaration of Principles of 2003, the concept of human rights was mostly anchored to Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and its freedom of expression. 20 years later, when we are in the digital space, we know that human rights is way more than just… freedom of expression. So ideally we want to work together with all stakeholders and start implementing the Global Digital Compact not in one year time, not in two years time, but right now. There are provisions that broaden the understanding of what human rights are. There is a section that is objective three of the Global Digital Compact that has a strong cluster of human rights and there are commitments from member states, there are calls for the private sector that is here represented at this table and it would be very good to hear from them how they plan of acting even further on new… is already undertaking. There is the digital advisory service run by the Office of the Commissioner for Human Rights and that we hope it will be another tool to sharpen the accountability of the private sector and of member states when it comes to respecting human rights online. Coming back on how we can do this in a multi-stakeholder way, a provision in the Global Digital Compact is to have a call for endorsement and you might have heard me saying this over and over again versus a time or two days ago. Endorsement, yes or no. It’s an online form, stakeholders can tell the UN Secretariat what they are doing or what they plan to do to implement the Global Digital Compact and any reference in there to what you have been doing over the last 20 years in connection to WSIS are most welcome and there is again an option to endorse. We do understand that for some civil society organizations sometimes endorsing can be a tough undertaking so that’s why we wanted to give the option of just specifying the areas of action. The Secretary General will publish a report on the implementation map and this will constitute the way forward and will run in parallel to the WSIS process. Where did I have to dash to the airport and trying to, not to prevent, but maybe to address one of the FAQs that we are getting on how these two processes can go together and this is just my personal take having been in the GDC negotiation and consultations since day one. I don’t see this as two different roads that diverge but rather as a stack. WSIS is fit for purpose if we make it fit for purpose. The action lines encompass a lot of the areas that are in the Global Digital Compact but not all of them and vice versa. Ideally you will have the implementation of the Global Digital Compact strengthening and adding to what is already in WSIS because again times are changing and we hope that with over the coming months engaging in Geneva with the WSIS plus 20 consults, co-facilitators for the process will be appointed by the end of March in New York by the President of the General Assembly and with the Global Digital Compact implementation process. And again to all of you around this table it is very, very important to hear from you on what you would like to see in the implementation of the Global Digital Compact because again multi-stakeholder processes they don’t happen by themselves. We as the UN Tech Envoy office and as the UN we are committed to keep it as multi-stakeholder as possible and to preserve that dimension but we really need to hear from all of you and with this Jaco back to you.

Jacco Pepijn-Baljet: Thank you so much Filippo and thank you for especially for elaborating on the Global Digital Compact laying out what it entails exactly also in terms of human rights and on how the implementation of the Global Digital Compact also can be nurtured and can be especially also endorsed or how the role of stakeholders in its implementation and upon that last point especially on the WSIS and the GDC relationship because I think that’s a question that many of us have and that we are all thinking about how we can best ensure that there is no duplication on that side and that we are not only reviewing text but actually implement it. So thank you Filippo and without further ado I will give the floor to Rasmus Lumi the Director General of the Department of International Organizations and Human Rights and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Estonia and who is also going to be the Chair of the Freedom Online Coalition in 2025. Rasmus, what role can the FOC and individual governments play in the implementation of the Global Digital Compact and how can we ensure, how can governments ensure together with the stakeholders of course to make sure that the GDC and the relevant implementation of the GDC and the different aspects of that and the WSIS plus 20 are in alignment with the international human rights law.

Rasmus Lumi: Maybe, okay good. So thank you very much and first of all I should be thankful to Ambassador Norman for his kind keynote although I’m now a bit much pressure on Estonia that I don’t know how to respond to that. So thank you very much. Now if you’ll allow me in the very beginning I would like to concentrate a bit also on the issue of multi-stakeholderism and the importance of it in the upcoming processes but then definitely will also say a few words about the possible FOC role. As a government representative it’s to note that for us fostering the multi-stakeholder approach is extremely important and we too have been looking with concern into the situation that many discussions have been varying towards multilateralism and not so much multi-stakeholderism but we will have to see what we can do about it. So looking back of course in the last 10 years tech governance has changed quite a bit and the recent GDC negotiations have gained prominence and at the same time become much more contested and meanwhile the UN ecosystem has grown much more complex and there is an increasing number of agencies competing for their role in different technology-related mandates and also now that the new UN tech office is entering the fora it will be even more complicated to figure out what is the best way of moving forward. But despite all this complexity we have learned during many years that everything about it has to be a multi-stakeholder effort in order for it to be more successful and more inclusive. There should be absolutely no one single country or entity who is controlling the internet and we can see it very well at the national level where one government is in control of the internet structures then in the form of internet shutdown this is something that is happening in the world quite often and in our future endeavors we should definitely avoid this happening on a global scale. We also know that there is no way to have a comprehensive approach when some stakeholders are excluded from the discussions and especially those stakeholders who are in other ways. So ultimately if we don’t have a sufficiently inclusive approach the outcome will be worse for everybody especially of course the people. And there is plenty of room for improvement since we have millions and even billions of people still without proper access to the internet. But this is again something that the governments must not and should not do alone but the global community should support this and also play a part. Now the digital governance as opposed to the internet governance is of course a much broader topic with wider scope and focus where we include e-governance, cyber security, digital inclusion, artificial intelligence and so on. But just like internet governance we cannot and must be very important that even in digital governance each stakeholder plays its role and not only for the sake of inclusion but also because they have specific competencies and then they could use them to play their part in those discussions. And since the digital society is an ecosystem and not an institution we should not forget that when we also talk about implementation of the GDC. Now as I said in the beginning during the GDC negotiations also we felt a shift towards a multilateral approach and this is proving how and why we need to continue showcasing the benefits and support of other stakeholder. This is a great example of this being such a global policy dialogue and bringing all the stakeholders together from technologists to the governments to civil society. And therefore as we approach the WSIS plus 20 process and discuss the implementation of the GDC we must adopt a strong common approach to ensure the protection of internet’s decentralized model. Regarding digital governance we must prioritize the inclusive governance and policy making that takes into account and respects human rights, democracy and the rule of law. Count the governance system we already have created and how to use it to its full potential instead of creating new mechanisms that might duplicate already existing formats. And with regard now to the role of the FOC and individual governments I will just mention that in Estonia’s experience technology generally is a very powerful tool. accompanied by proper change management, which is very important. And we have to focus on how to transform the societies as a whole, with the help of technologies. Now, in the FOC, as a coalition of like-minded, we can message, and the FOC states can and will protect this principle, across different forums. As advocacy, as you know, is the FOC’s strongest tool. And another, and finally I will mention that another important aspect is capacity building. This is one of the priorities for the Estonian chairship in the FOC, and we will definitely continue our efforts in this regard. Often there is confusion and sometimes even resistance how exactly human rights can be followed and implemented when using and developing technologies. So, and by capacity building, it’s very important. And the OHCHR has a crucial role to play in this, which the GDC also affirmed. So, the FOC, as well as individual governments, will have to continue supporting the OHCHR and its work. And it also means that we have to continue doing it financially. So I will leave it to that for now, and maybe come back later after some questions. Thank you.

Jacco Pepijn-Baljet: Thank you very much, Rasmus. And yeah, especially thank you also for mentioning the complexities, because indeed, digital governance, internet governance are very complex fields. But I think you would agree with me that if we underline that including as many stakeholders as possible in the conversation is not something that makes it more complex, but actually helps us engage with the complexities of the governance and of the technical and governmental issues. Governmental, yeah, the governing challenges which is emerging technologies and the internet. And especially also change management, which you mentioned. You mentioned it, of course, in the context of digital transformation, but I also think that for the WSIS plus 20 review, we need to develop together a very strong and agile change management for the WSIS. So, having said that, we will turn to Anja Jengel from the IGF Secretariat. I’m glad you could make it. How can forums and spaces like the Internet Governance Forum continue to serve as an inclusive space for dialogue amidst changes in the global digital ecosystem? Anja, I will give you the mic too.

Anja Gengo: Thank you. Thank you very much, Jaakko and Riad. Thank you for being patient and waiting for me. The Secretariat is extremely busy on the first and last day, especially of the IGF. But it’s a great honor for us to join the Freedom Online Coalition in this setup in Riad. We have been cooperating, collaborating particularly over the past two years very closely. And I use this opportunity to recognize the excellent work that the Coalition has been doing, especially during the consultations on the Global Digital Compact leading toward its adoption. And I use the opportunity as well on behalf of the Secretariat to congratulate the Chair, Ambassador Norman, on… …wonderful, and we welcome certainly working closely with Estonia and new leadership in the months to come. That is indeed a very important question. The IGF, as you know, has been convened in 2006 by the Secretary General as a neutral platform that will allow for facilitation of multi-stakeholder dialogue on issues pertaining to public digital policy. Indeed, some of the terms that especially in the recent times are present in our discourse, such as Internet governance and digital governance, what is the difference? It is an interesting debate. But essentially, I think nothing is better to tell us in terms of description of the digital public policy issues than people. And through the IGF, we really see, because of its bottom-up nature and, of course, multi-stakeholder approach, that people really see digital technologies as something that’s more and more integrated in their lives. And therefore, speaking indeed about one entity, one… …is really impossible now. It’s part of our lives, and it’s deeply integrated in all spheres. Therefore, including at the UN system, various institutions can now not even avoid not to deal with the digital, because it’s just there in every sphere of our lives and of our dynamics. If we look back in the past now 19 years of the IGF, things have been changing, and as digital technologies have been evolving, so has the IGF. I always like to start from the numbers, a nice indicator of the success or maybe of an alarm where we need to do more. And, you know, always these WSIS Plus 20 preparations are reminding me of my beginnings with the IGF, which was around WSIS Plus 10, when the IGF was hosted by the government of Brazil. And in Brazil, we could speak about certainly less than 1,000 stakeholders that were participating in Joao Pessoa’s annual meeting, coming from around 120, 22 different member states. The numbers in the past changed, I would say, in favor of all those who are diligently standing to protect the multi-stakeholder approach to Internet, which is, for example, that in Kyoto last year, we could speak about triple participation than 10 years ago, so more than 9,000 stakeholders participated from around 178 member states. That’s a significant increase in just a 10-year period. And that also tells us that the multi-stakeholder approach is being endorsed or adopted or visible in other various parts of the world. Another indicator, which I think is a mere fact of the endorsement of the multi-stakeholder approach through the IGF model, is the growing number of the local IGFs, national, regional, sub-regional and youth IGFs. So, for example, during the WSIS Plus 10, the Secretary has been reporting to the community that we work with about 50, less than 50, NRIs. They were really proud to say that we work with a very firm, robust, stable network of 178 national, regional, sub-regional and youth IGFs. And just to tell the number, but the community tripled the number of the IGF models that are deployed at the local level through the multi-stakeholder approach. So those are, for example, some of the indicators of the success. The IGF as a platform, and I certainly can speak for the Secretariat, continues to serve people around the world and continues to react on the demand that comes from the people. That’s why the agenda every year is changing, basically being reflective of the demand that’s coming from stakeholders from around the world through the public consultations. As the digital technologies are changing, as, for example, the artificial intelligence is becoming more and more prominent, or more and more part of us, so is the agenda or the program of the IGF annually speaking. Since 2016, there’s been a significant shift. Topics that were dominating the agenda by that time, such as cybersecurity, safety online, access and connectivity, have slowly been pushed a little bit on the maybe second place by the topics related to new and emerging technologies, especially artificial intelligence, just because it’s bringing a new wave of challenges to us and it’s bringing an additional layer of responsibilities in front of the multistakeholder community to respond how to govern this very important piece of technology that is more and more accessible. I would say those are the indicators, and I think in terms of the IGF, we will certainly see how the WSIS Plus 20 and the whole preparatory process will behave, but the Secretariat remains committed to its community to listen what is the demand, and then to respond within its capacity to the best of its ability to adjust the process so that it’s reflective of the needs and hopefully to help us resolve the issues that have been identified by the community for having a sustainable development overall. Thank you very much.

Jacco Pepijn-Baljet: Thank you, Aymar. Thank you for your remarks. And if I may try to summarize them, I think you wanted to emphasize mostly that the IGF, throughout its existence, has been, the character of the IGF has been very much bottom-up and flexible to make sure that it can actually stand the test of time and continue to evolve together with the technical, social, political, all the developments that are ongoing. And I think that’s also something that we want to retain. So thank you very much for that. And then we’ll move to the private sector because we have different stakeholders around the table. So we will move to the private sector now. To Emila Adladi, Global Head of Stakeholder Engagement from META. Emila, given the critical role of online platforms in the private sector in guiding global digital cooperation, how can industry contribute to the realization of a rights-perspective and inclusive digital future while ensuring accountability? And what does this look like in practice?

Emilar Gandhi: Thank you so much for… It’s weird when you hear yourself. Thank you so much for that question. So tough, the end of the IGF, after four or five days of conversations, but, yeah, I think that, you know, as private sector, we have a huge role to play. And META has taken several steps or several initiatives to ensure that we contribute to rights-respecting in the future. And some of it actually aligns with what the Director General said and what, you know, my colleague also mentioned. I think I’ll take a step back… a little bit and say, for us, our approach is stemmed from our goals or our mission as a company is embedded in how we actually approach human rights and how we build our products and how we build our policies. So by that, I mean, it’s good and nice to be here, for us to be able to share the tales. But if our foundation is not strong, then we might as well just be theorizing everything that we are saying here. So for us, it’s part of our mission. It’s part of how we approach inclusivity and how we approach human rights. And by that, I mean, in terms of our hiring, in terms of ensuring that we have people in our teams that actually also represent the people who are using our platforms. As most of you know, over 90% of the people that use our platforms are outside of the US and Canada. Of course, our staff is not at our levels, but ensuring that people who are working on these issues, particularly in terms of policy, have the lived experiences, can speak the languages and can engage and do outreach as we need. We also have a human rights policy team that actually experts on these issues. So that’s one. So having a mission that is actually, it’s inclusivity and inclusion at the heart of everything that we do. Secondly, multi-stakeholder engagements. We are here to be part of this conversation, one, at the Internet Governance Forum, but also in the FOC as a META member. I was a co-chair of the FOC Advisory Network for about three years. I think it’s an important platform in Estonia, as you take on the chairship. But it’s also a place where you have civil society, you have governments having conversations. I think that’s very, very important because you just do not want partners who tap you on the back to say you’re doing well, but also who will make sure that you are accountable. The third thing that I would also mention is our human rights corporate policy that we launched in 2020, which is, for us, groundbreaking. But also, it’s not just a policy that we say, now we have it, let’s tick a box. Within that framework, we are ensuring that we are training our employees internally for them to be aware of human rights principles, for our employees to be aware, not only to be trained, but also aware of the human rights principles as they build products and as they build policies as well. We also do regular human rights due diligence assessments to identify and mitigate as well. And the third thing that I’ll mention is, the fourth one is stakeholder engagement, and then I’ll pass on the mic. With regards to stakeholder engagement, I think this actually contributes to how inclusive our policies and products are. Every time we write our community standards, we engage externally. But I think that sounds nice on paper, but how we do it is ensuring that we identify not only people that identify themselves as experts, but also people with lived experiences. We go beyond just geographical, but we also look at cultural inclusion. Who has the cultural competence to ensure that they can engage with these issues? But also, I want to reference what the Director General also mentioned around, you know, some people not having access. So you might, and access, I mean infrastructure and also content access. So even if you are reaching out to someone because you want to be inclusive, but do they even have internet access to engage with you? Is engaging virtually something that’s, you know, is that the right format of engaging? Or should you ensure that you meet them where they are at? Content access, can they actually meaningfully engage in the issue that is at hand? Because for the engagement and for the stakeholder engagement to be inclusive and to be meaningful, then we have to also invest in ensuring that we build the capacity of the people that actually talk to us to ensure that we improve our policies. Otherwise, then it’s not inclusive at all. The transparency, which we can talk about later on once we’ve done all of this. But if we are not sharing about our decision making, who we engaged with, we have the transparency center where you can actually see the changes that go through our policies. Everything is there. But I think one criticism will be who has the time to go through that transparency center. And I think I’m sure we have so much more work to do to ensure that it’s not just there, but also it can be used as a mechanism for accountability.

Jacco Pepijn-Baljet: Thank you, and thank you for being very comprehensive and explaining that I was working to actually holistically approach this issue with all the stakeholders and also touching upon your role in the advocacy advisory network, which of course, also, yeah, I’m going to repeat this many times, but the advisory network is also, especially because we want to include the stakeholders in our work as a free online We’ll go to the next question, which is the same question, both for Savannas and Boja. So, first, let’s refer to Savannas Pashithia, the executive director of TechGlobal Initiative and also a member of the advocacy advisory network. Savannas, how can stakeholders, including governments, the private sector, international organizations, and civil society work in collaboration with civil society to ensure that the voices of the global majority and marginalized groups are being engaged in both shaping and implementing global digital governance frameworks, like the UN Global Digital Conflict and the WSIS plus 20 review, taking into account the unique challenges of digital like the UN Global Digital Conflict and the WSIS plus 20 review, taking into account the unique challenges and local context in different regions.

Sabhanaz Rashid Diya: Thanks, everyone, for having us here. So, at TechGlobal Institute, we primarily focus on getting the global majority stakeholders of the private sector, civil society, marginalized communities, refugees into the conversation around what does the internet mean to them and how do we govern it better. And I think it’s quite fundamental to us that when we see the differences, not only between the global north and the global majority, but also even within the global majority, there’s a number of different equities that are at play. For example, we have gender inequalities that continue to be persistent, even in rooms when there is multi-stakeholderism happening, we oftentimes see there’s more men or we see certain groups having a more majority role in these conversations than many of the other groups. So, I think to ensure that we have a truly multi-stakeholder model, I think we have to first acknowledge the fact that the multi-stakeholder model, while it is all well and good and has been the bedrock of internet governance for the last 20 years, is not perfect and that there are many power asymmetries that exist within the multi-stakeholder model itself, which has made many communities across the global majority particularly feel disenfranchised and excluded. And this is not just the communities that don’t have access to the internet as it is, but also communities that don’t have access to these kinds of spaces, whether it’s because of financial capital, because of knowledge, because of networks, there’s a number of different power asymmetries at play. I think it’s very important to acknowledge that. The director-general from Estonia has also alluded to, is really around even when communities are connected, sometimes because of shutdowns, they become disconnected and again, they’re left out of the conversation. So, there’s different layers to that and I think for us to really preserve the multi-stakeholder model and to be able to ensure that it works for the global majority and for people around the world, it is really important to start interrogating some aspects of the multi-stakeholder model to ensure that it is responding to the needs of the people on the ground. I think the second is really on the capacity piece. Even when we are in these kinds of spaces, and I think that’s where the technical community, the private sector, governments have a tremendous role to play in terms of how do we ensure that when groups have access to international spaces, are sitting on these tables, they’re active. In the last one year, we’ve seen that with the GDC and a number of other processes, it’s actually quite extraordinary the amount of things happening and it’s a lot to keep track of. And if you are a under-resourced suicide organization in the global majority, where you have existential crisis around not just the internet and being online and surviving online, but also in terms of food security, climate change, political geopolitics, there’s so many things at play and in that kind of environment, keeping track of what’s happening in New York and Geneva is really, really difficult. And so I think to be able to, again, make the multi-stakeholder model work, it’s really important to invest quite deliberately in capacity of communities from the very sort of grassroots up to the very… You heard from the IGF Secretary about the NRIs, and oftentimes in the last sort of 20 years, we’ve also seen that while NRIs are great in terms of engaging local communities, oftentimes they also are not sufficiently multi-stakeholder. They oftentimes become politicized or they end up only capturing the majority of voices that women are left behind. That has been at least my experience in my NRI. And so I think to ensure that if we want multi-stakeholderism to really work for the global majority, that there is a downstream effect along the way. We are very deliberate about, one, building that capacity, two, creating intentional spaces. And then three, are designing those spaces in a way where different voices have equal rights and equal say and are able to contribute to what they want on how the internet to be. And I think that lived experience that I think also, that Medha also mentioned is really critical. I think the last piece I’m gonna say is just in terms of ensuring a multilingual internet. I think that’s quite important in terms of that. And that’s a huge contribution of both the technical community as well as the private sector, that if the internet, and I think Medha also talked about the fact that 90% of the web is used, but if you see the websites on the world of the internet, it’s majority English. And that is also a huge problem in terms of access and the kind of content we’re designing and having the communities properly represented online. But at the same time, we also have to remember that now that with AI and other kinds of technologies, building a multilingual internet should not mean that we expect indigenous communities to contribute data for free. And so there’s also that power dynamic that we have to be quite cognizant of. So I hope that as we think about the implementation of the GDC and how the member states intentional about how we’re also thinking about the multi-stakeholder model, about inclusion, about space building, and about the inherent power asymmetries that are not unique to the multi-stakeholder model, that is structural asymmetries that exist. But I think we have a real opportunity as a community that to be able to build those spaces in a way so that everybody has an equal footing and an equal say and has an equal stake in these conversations. Because the internet, from where I come from, the internet is the world. And without its access, I think we fundamentally get cut off from the world. And so there is a very real stake here. And I hope as we are thinking about, as all these various stakeholders are thinking about it, that space building. Thank you.

Adeboye Adegoke: Hello, okay. Yeah, thanks. Excuse me. Thank you very much for the question and for the opportunity to contribute this conversation. My name is Adibwe Adigoke and I work for an organization called Paradigm Initiative. We work in Africa and we represent the global south community as well. I think the issue around stakeholderism within the context of global processes such as the WSIS and the GDC is a conversation that has been blocked, if not overflowed. And I think we are at the point where we need to come up with some tangible recommendations in terms of how to proceed in this conversation. I think one of the concerns that have been discussed is around the role of the IGF, for example, in implementation of the GDC, for example, whether the IGF represent a veritable platform to achieve that objective, or whether other options are to, I mean, the IGF has been that IGF is not known to be the platform that leads to actionable outcomes or tangible outcomes, which is a valid argument. But I would also argue that if it is not, if it doesn’t lead to actionable outcomes, who is to blame? Why is it so? It doesn’t lead to actionable outcome because it is not set up to lead to actionable outcome and we will make it to lead to actionable outcome if not the UN, if not the countries. We will decide to make it what it is right now. So I do think that if we do, if good reason, the reason why a lot of civil society organizations have bias for the IGF process is that it’s probably one of the few processes where civil society voices are at least visible. I mean, the point has been made about how invisible non-state actors were in the GDC negotiation, for example. So I do think that it is not enough to say the IGF doesn’t lead to actionable outcome. It’s about if we believe in multistakeholderism and if we think that IGF reflects multistakeholderism, then I think the question that should be on the table is how do we strengthen the IGF to be able to achieve or to lead to actionable outcomes? But I also think that one issue around multistakeholderism, especially from the global perspective, is that I do think that it’s about paying the deep service over the years and it has not helped us to really advance. My colleague was talking about a lot of dimensions of around marginalized voices, male, female, no dynamics and all of that. And I remember being in a room, in a panel where the moderator was introducing panelists and after he had introduced four men, he said, oh, we are gender conscious, so we also introduce a woman to join the panel. And I said, what happens a lot in a lot of processes whereby the issues that people complain about, multistakeholderism, gender balance, our response to it is tokenistic. We are not really interested in addressing the issue. And I think that is also the same thing with multistakeholderism. A lot of platform we set up to achieve multistakeholder objective are set up as a tokenistic response to the complaints. If we are more genuine about how to achieve it, I believe that we have what it takes to achieve it. And I’ll quickly, before I end, rather, some of the efforts or some of the initiatives that can help us to achieve multistakeholder outcomes. I do think that one of the challenges that multistakeholder process has is that it is not just enough that you don’t have diverse stakeholders in the room. It’s also because you don’t have equal capacity by diverse stakeholders. So even when you manage to get diverse stakeholders into the room, they cannot negotiate or discuss at the same level because they don’t have the capacity. I work for an organization that I think we are a bit privileged, coming from civil society, we’re a bit privileged to be part of organizations that do the kind of work that we do, don’t have. But I also think that what we also need to do at the multilateral level is that where we have opportunities to engage with organizations such as ours, it is not just about getting us in the room. It’s also about using us as a link between the government, between the multilateral processes and the diverse communities that we serve. So we don’t just want to be there and feel among. We want to be there knowing that we represent a whole lot of communities of people using our voice to make their opinions heard at the global stage. So I know I’ve been bashing multilateral, I’ve been bashing the UN. Now, this is also an advice to a few of us that get the chance to speak in rooms like this, to also recognize that we are not here to advance ourself. We are also here to represent the community. And we need to also create a process back home whereby we create engagement platforms where we can let the community know what kind of conversation is happening at the multilateral level, let them know how they can contribute to it. And so that when we show up here, we are not just discussing our opinion, we are discussing what our communities want us to talk about. Thank you.

Jacco Pepijn-Baljet: Thank you, Boya, and thank you, Sabanas. Thank you very much for your remarks. I think they were especially very useful because you try to connect the local with the global level and try to especially also bring this input from the local level into the conversation, even though we have some conversations that are multilateral and maybe a bit more closed. While we are trying to open them up, we are also trying to create more opportunities and to create more momentum. Most are with a broad range of stakeholders at the IGF, but also outside of it. And I think that’s an example that many others could also follow. Without further ado, I will move to the last question to the panelists. It’s also a question for two of our speakers. So we’ll first introduce them and then mention the question. We have Olaf Kolkman, Executive Level Advisor and Spokesperson, and I think also Principal from the Internet Society and from the technical community. And we have Fiona Alexander here from the American University, who is also a member from the academia. And then to the question, building on what Boya and Shabana just mentioned also, how can we ensure that digital governance is not only inclusive, but also underpinned by the necessary technical expertise, leveraging the knowledge and expertise of the technical community and academia, and the lessons learned from previous processes, such as the WSIS Plus 10, but perhaps also the WSIS, the original WSIS process and the Tunis process that we had there. Olaf, I will give the floor for you.

Olaf Kolfman: I’m going to start with, I promised myself not to mention AI during this whole week, but I failed. If you train a large language model and you provide it with incomplete input, it will start to hallucinate. And I think that the multi-stakeholder mechanisms, if you do not provide all the inputs that you have at the table, the inputs that you have at the table, the output of the process will be a hallucination. Therefore, we need everybody at the table, including the technical community, which will help to produce an outcome that suits reality, so to speak, that is achievable. But also, of course, the other stakeholders, so that we’re not hallucinating about rights and about social justice issues. As a, I’m not going to call myself a representative of the technical community. I am somebody who has a technical community background. I’ve been contributing to the development of the internet for two and a half decades. I can only speak for my own organization, and there are many technical community organizations out there. First, I want to come back to, we heard how the GDC was developed, and we’ve heard that multi-stakeholderism is front and central as an output of it. However, the process itself was not a leading by example type of process with respect to multi-stakeholderism. And therefore, the question whether the GDC was a leading by example type of process with respect to multi-stakeholderism is not a leading by example type of process. And therefore, the question whether the GDC was a leading by example type of process is not a leading by example type of process. And therefore, the question whether the process or the outcome should be endorsed is one that we at least at the Internet Society answer is no, we will not endorse it. We were not part of this process. We were looking in through opaque windows and sort of guessing what was happening. At some point there was a consultation, but consultation is not multi-stakeholder engagement. It’s not a discussion. It’s not sharing what you’ve learned and improving on that outcome. And of course we understand that in a multilateral environment such as the U.N. at some points the doors close and decisions are being made, but those should be moment, not at draft one, two or whatever the draft number was. We like the outcome of the paper, the principle, the vision, and the objectives that the GDC defines and as the Internet Society again, I cannot talk for the whole community, we at least will be working towards some of these objectives, including making sure that the last people it is and probably more still are going to be connected to the Internet because that’s the basis of being able to reap the benefits of the Internet. And there again multi-stakeholderism is important because the initiatives that connect the people in the most difficult places are initiatives that are sort of local, local initiatives, community networks, innovative solutions that people build on the ground together with stakeholders that are technical and stakeholders that are interest groups, actual stakeholders. And I think that the role that the IGF structure from local to national to regional to global plays a role there. The IGF in that sense works as a norm and entrepreneur bubble up. They gain maybe formal, maybe informal consensus at the highest level and then trickle down again so that people can act locally while thinking globally. So I think that that is, for me, that is what multi-stakeholderism embodies. With respect to the role of the technical community, I have to say, and now I’m saying we, we speak a different language too. And we as technical community can, because we speak a different language, we use different acronyms than the people that are engaged with traditional governance issues. And that makes things difficult. You don’t land a technologist in this forum and accept them to be able to navigate it. NRI doesn’t mean anything to them. But if you take a policymaker and you dump them in a technical environment, TCP doesn’t mean anything to them. And I think it’s very important to be conscious about that. One of the things that I do in the Context Engineering Task Force is that we help policymakers understand that environment. We do policy programs. We expose policymakers to those groups. The ITF itself brings different communities into it to discuss issues that are relevant for society. We have a human rights and protocol research group in which we discuss those things. That doesn’t make the ITF from the global south and the global majority and doesn’t make it easy to contribute, but it is still an open forum in which people can contribute it should they have the capacity and resources, which that organization can unfortunately not offer. I know I am meandering around a few topics here, but I think that is sort of the gist of it. To get together, only then we can solve complex issues. And the technology is often an aspect of that complexity. So you need the technologists in the room. When we do that, we need to have a conscious and purposeful way of engaging. That goes two ways. And the IGF, I think, is a good forum where we exchange ideas and bring things back home so that we can implement them. Those were the three things. Thank you, Jaco.

Fiona Alexander: Apparently, I was clocked in earlier as being the fastest speaker at the IGF on Monday. So I will try to actually be much slower today. But who knows? I’m naturally a fast talker. So let me know if I get back up to that high speed again. Thanks for the invitation. It’s good. I’m happy to be here and talk about sort of this important topic. And I was sort of struck by not just the questions, but the interventions that everyone else has made. And it’s kind of the nice problem of being the last person. You get to kind of pull from what everyone else has said. So I’ll try to do that with what I’m doing as well. But the question is, how do you actually make sure that the conversations are underpinned by all the right expertise? And the only way you do that is by letting people in the room and giving them the capacity to be a meaningful peer. And as I reflect on the last year and all the work the FOC has done on things led by the ambassador and others, and what the AN has done, what I see from the New York processes this year is two processes that touched on digital issues that point to the limits and the inability of the New York UN processes to actually involve people. So not only do we have the experience of the Global Digital Compact, which several folks have talked about, we also had the experience of the UN Cybercrime Convention, where actually stakeholders were actually allowed, theoretically, to be in the room and give advice, and then were ignored for two years. So my takeaway from this past year’s experience is that the New York processes, by design and by structure, are limited in their way to involve stakeholders. And I don’t see a meaningful way to change that. I will keep saying it should change, and I will keep pushing for it to change. But the reality is those structures and systems are inherently set up not to allow that. So the way to address that going forward is to make sure FOC countries keep coordinating, make sure AN members are part of that process, FOC member states allowing other folks on their delegations, perhaps, kind of helps can address some of that. But the other, my takeaway, is that when I actually look at the final output of the GDC and I read it carefully, and I’ve been doing this work for 25 years. I was in the U.S. government for about 20 years before doing what I do now for the last five. They’re very new. Almost nothing, actually, as I read it and think about all the other things I’ve been involved in negotiating in the last 25 years. There’s a new conversation on data governance that the CSTD is doing, and luckily the CSTD actually has processes to involve people. So that’s actually a great win, I think, for us. And then there’s a new AI panel, which I’m still not sure what it’s for. But otherwise, there’s not much in the GDC that’s new. And when we talk about GDC implementation, I would offer, I think the GDC implementation is well underway, because the GDC is just reinforcing what we’re all already doing. And so while I think the conversations next year in New York are important, and clearly the resolution that will be adopted likely in December of next year about WSIS renewal and WSIS plus 20 will be pivotal, the conversation around that will inherently be intergovernmental. It will be the last quarter of next year, probably. So that means five months of next year. And I think the emphasis that we should collectively consider taking on is looking at our local and national processes. And I’m struck when Anya mentioned 178 national and regional IGFs now. And for those that weren’t involved in the beginning, the impetus for the national and regional IGFs happened because the UK stakeholders went home after the first IGF in Greece and said, oh, we should do one of these at home. There was nothing in the global IGF that said go forth and do this. There was nothing that anybody said you should do this. It was people from the UK, I don’t know, at some point. And they came back and they said, we should do this in our country. And that then spurred everybody else to take this on and do that around. And now 20 years later, you have 178 NRIs, local, national, regional, youth, whatever it may be. And that’s a pretty inspiring thing to think about. And 20 years later, we got to that. And, again, this gets back to my suggestion for going forward, which is, yes, we have to engage in New York and monitor in the way that we can. But GDC implementation is not something that needs to start. It’s already happened or is ongoing. And I think if we start thinking of it that way, then we can go back to focusing on what’s actually important, which is how do we actually involve and participate and solve these problems where we have structures to participate. When I think back to 20 years ago and even looking at the ITU or UNESCO, those groups were not particularly open and inclusive. And I’m not suggesting that they’re perfect now, but they’ve made great strides. So I think that the operating agencies of the UN, the executing agencies of the UN, whether it’s an IGF, which I would include in that, or whether it’s a WSIS forum, or whether it’s a UNESCO, or whether it’s an ITU, whether it’s these other IGFs that are outside the process, whether it’s an ICANN or an IETF, those processes all have mechanisms and those processes are making best efforts. So I think it’s time for us to go back and engaging in doing those things, not in a performative way, as you suggested in some cases, but actually undertaking that. And that’s where I think we need to shift our focus. Because I think the New York exercise and processes of this year have just reinforced for me that the New York processes aren’t going to ever solve our problems, because by design they’re going to be multilateral. We can keep pushing, we can keep demanding access, and we can keep working with FOC and other partner governments to make things better, but I think we’re going to hit a wall repeatedly over and over. And I really think that we need to focus on the other parts of the ecosystem and the WSIS ecosystem as we know it. That’s kind of my takeaway from this week, especially as I listen to the OSET Secretariat attempt to answer questions – I’m sorry, the flipper’s already gone – about how they’re going to go forward, and they don’t know still. And I think that just speaks to the lack of – even if they wanted to – the lack of opportunity in a meaningful way.

Jacco Pepijn-Baljet: Piona, and thank you, Olaf, for your comments. And I’m very glad that both the national and regional initiatives and the transmission control protocol have been mentioned now, so that we can put in our pocket. And I’m also actually glad that you mentioned New York versus local versus national, and I think when we are engaging with the WSIS process, but also broader internet governance, that would speak to sort of double engagement, where we both try to meaningfully engage with these processes that are in New York or in Geneva and that are more multilateral-based, and trying to ensure that these are not too detailed, but that they are creating an enabling environment for those more locally-based and nationally-based initiatives. Because we don’t need to have all the details in New York. We can have general principles, we can have more general language, but that language has to be enabling for all those other initiatives. And I think on the other hand, we have to make sure that we have to engage with our stakeholders at home and within our own smaller or bigger circles of influence. So we have a few more minutes. We have, I think, about eight minutes for questions, and then we’ll have another round for all the speakers to give their last takeaway in about one or two sentences. So let me see, do we have any questions in the room or online? No? Okay. Because there are two comments online, but I don’t know if they are. Okay. If we don’t have any questions in the room or online, I think that just means that we have more time for our panel. Oh, we do. Yeah. More comments than questions, but very useful. Yeah. If we don’t have any questions online or in the room, I think we are going to go to our speakers for their final words. And I’m going to have the same order as we did before, except that, of course, Philippe was left. One second. So that means we will go to Rasmus for your final remarks.

Rasmus Lumi: Okay. So thank you. Is that 30 seconds now or a bit more? Okay. Yeah. So just to comment on a few, just to say that I very much agree that a lot is happening here and there and everywhere, except for one thing. And that is that there is a lot going on. And just to say that I very much agree that a lot is happening here and there and everywhere, except for New York in terms of multi-stakeholderism. So I think you’re quite right that the mindset in New York is very multilateral. It is very difficult to have a different type of access there. So I think the way we have been working in the FOC and in other fora is the right way to go in order to actually be able to get some input into the government’s thinking in order for them to carry it over then to the discussions in New York. I also think that it is important to work a lot on the national level, because, well, as it is said, all foreign policy is also domestic. So it means that a lot can be done and have to be done on the national level so that the governments will then appear on the international arena already with the necessary input into the civil society and so on in what they have gotten from their own country. It is obvious that it is not the same for every country and it is not even possible in every country, but at least this is the approach that should be tried everywhere by trying to show the governments that where their interest may lie in being inclusive in these processes. I also wanted to agree very much with the point that actually I just omitted in the beginning to make it later that we, even as a government, we also encourage our other government members in their delegations wherever possible in these discussions in order to make it more easy to have the multi-stakeholder approach working on the international level. So very much agreed with this point. And then maybe finally just to say that we very well recognize as a government that multilateral formats are not sufficient to handle all those questions and cannot everything alone with regard to discussions related to Internet governance and digital technologies and therefore we do need an inclusive approach. And the question is what is the best way of achieving it and one here in the IGF, we can say that this is exactly why we believe that IGF needs to be strengthened. It’s very important to pay attention to this when the mandate renewal for the IGF will come to discussion and we very much support the stronger Internet governance forum and its bottom up way. This is why I also mentioned in the beginning that we should put in more effort in making those existing multi-stakeholder formats work instead of trying to create new ones that might make things more complex. Thank you.

Jacco Pepijn-Baljet: Thank you Rasmus and I think you almost stuck to the 30 seconds.

Anja Gengo: Thank you very much. I certainly would like to say that I do understand that sometimes maybe there is a concern or even frustration that we are slower in terms of our good action and policy with respect to the rapid development of digital technologies. But I also think that we should not underestimate everything that has been done in the past 20 years because it’s really remarkable. And that is this whole ecosystem that we established of various concept of local IGFs just because it’s the closest to us and I think it’s much easier to see the change on the ground through the national IGFs rather than through a global IGF because of the complexity. For instance, we are now working with more resources and more mechanisms at our disposal. So that’s I think an encouraging factor. Where we need to focus our attention more, I completely agree with Fiona and other colleagues who mentioned, is really the capacity development. We are not anymore in this narrative where we have four stakeholder groups represented by numbers. We have to look at that in a more nuanced way through maybe a multidisciplinary lens. We have been seeing that through the IGFs. Our statistics are always very nice in that sense. You are exactly seeing from which countries, for example, we have lower participation, especially looking, for example, in the past 10 years. We are also seeing which disciplines are missing in this discourse, especially as the technologies are becoming so integrated that it’s not anymore exclusive, for example, to the car industry or health sector to be part of these discussions. It’s not much needed in these areas. So that’s what I think, that now evolving from multistakeholder to multidisciplinary, having all disciplines involved with us is very important. That’s why this IGF, for example, legislators, parliamentarians, but also very much put emphasis on working more with the private sector of various backgrounds and with the judiciary as courts, prosecutors, the court system overall, is coming up with decisions that are reflecting all of us, one way or another, and that’s why it’s important to have them understand, first of all, what are they deciding against before any wrong decisions are made, which have long-term consequences on our human rights, first of all. Thank you very much.

Jacco Pepijn-Baljet: Thank you, Anja, and I will give it straight to Emilio.

Emilar Gandhi: I think, really, a good conversation. So, for me, just in terms of closing remarks, the IGF is an important space, but also, more importantly, the FOC, I think, is really, really an important space for us, this private sector, and I’m sure civil society. I was in civil society before I participated in FOC, and it was really important then, as it is important now. not only I think for pushing diplomacy or inter-goals, but it’s also an important space where we can all sit around the table, not only for change, but for relationship building, for trust building, particularly from an industry perspective, I also think it’s important not only as a space for, you know, like right now, creating statements or from a substance perspective, but it’s also important as an example of an inclusive process. It’s important and I… Second. Oh, it’s dead, sorry. It’s on, okay. Sorry, the mic, yeah. But, you know, but also the FOC is important, I think as a process, you know, is an exemplary process that we can all learn from, and I hope there will still be continued support for the Secretariat, who are also, you know, a lot of the work behind the scenes to support all the work that FOC and the AN is doing, and that cannot happen, and we cannot talk about inclusion and digital future without actually putting resources where our mouth is, so I thank you to everyone.

Jacco Pepijn-Baljet: Thank you, Indra, I’ll give it straight to Helen for your closing remarks.

Sabhanaz Rashid Diya: Thank you, Jakob. Thank you all for your insightful interventions. I think for us, for the majority, I think there were two main takeaways from the last year. And I see this being reflected also in this particular conversation, one is really the power of local networks, and whether that is national or governmental communities, and really, I think, while we cannot always influence all the purposes in New York, like Fiona said, we do have tremendous structures and networks built on at the local level and at the national level, and I think there’s a real opportunity to be able to engage with those networks to then be able to then influence international processes. And I completely agree with Rasmus and Fiona in terms of decentralizing these conversations as much as possible, and ensuring that stakeholders at that level, whether it’s governments, their private sector, civil society, authorities, are able to participate in a meaningful way, and then bring it up to the international level. And the second is, as we were participating in the last couple of years, but also particularly the last year, I think the issue of capacity really came up, and I think we also alluded to it, that even when we have access to these spaces, there’s a gap in capacity, so then we are unable to negotiate the way we would like to, and not all of us come from countries and have governments who are willing to engage with civil society, and so we also have to engage in very different ways and using very creative ways. And so that capacity piece is really critical, so I hope as we get into the future, the next few years, particularly next year, there’s serious consideration about how we’re building capacity of various stakeholders, including governments, in the global majority, to be able to come to these forums with a collective bargaining power, because I think that’s what’s gonna make all the difference when we think about the future of the internet.

Jacco Pepijn-Baljet: Thank you, and we have three speakers left and a few minutes only, so I’ll ask you to keep it brief.

Adeboye Adegoke: All right, thank you. I think it’s helpful that the point about capacity has been made over and over again, but I’ll just use the opportunity of the last remark to, again, spotlight the work of the FOC, because I think the FOC has served as some sort of buffer for filling the gap around multi-stakeholder involvement. I personally consider the FOC as a very strategic coalition that has provided a platform for, especially through the advisory network, for a lot of expertise that exists outside of government to engage in global processes. I am a beneficiary of that, for example, so I think that’s very important. So this is commendation for the FOC, and I trust that with the leadership of the government of Estonia, that will continue to be the case as well. So I also just think that strategic initiatives such as the FOC’s like that, we should also to know that they complete in buffering some of the gaps that we have identified during this conversation. Thank you.

Jacco Pepijn-Baljet: Thank you, Borja, and to Olaf.

Olaf Kolfman: Much has been said. I would underline the need for a bottom-up involvement, and I saw a good example this week, our Tanzania chapter, the ISOC chapter in Tanzania, and to organize a WSIS PrEP meeting. And I think that is the type of initiative that we should see basically everywhere, local communities self-organizing, going to their government and basically prepping this stuff.

Jacco Pepijn-Baljet: Thank you, Olaf. And then we have our final speaker. Of course, some of us know that the last remarks are best remembered, so I think we’re all getting pressure on each other. So I’m going to let you do that.

Fiona Alexander: Slow and conscious of time and not too much pressure. I think just agreeing with all the closing remarks everyone else has said, let’s make that slow. And I would just encourage us as we go forward as FOC and FOCAN, we really think strategically for next year about how best to leverage the collaborative nature that we have. And I think at least from my perspective, I think there’s two big priorities for next year for WSIS 20, and that’s obviously the renewal of the IGF. But I think it’s really time that we try to focus on getting some sustained funding for the IGF so that the IGF is not strangers to give them the money and actually give them some real money in the budget. So I think those would be my two big priority items for WSIS 20 next year.

Jacco Pepijn-Baljet: Thank you very much. Thank you to our speakers. Thank you to our audience. And I wish you a very nice day. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Agreement Points

Importance of multi-stakeholder approach

Ernst Noorman

Filippo Pierozzi

Rasmus Lumi

Anja Gengo

Emilar Gandhi

Sabhanaz Rashid Diya

Adeboye Adegoke

Olaf Kolfman

Fiona Alexander

Multi-stakeholder approach is crucial for addressing complex digital issues

GDC implementation should involve multi-stakeholder engagement

IGF serves as an inclusive space for dialogue on digital policy issues

Global majority voices need to be engaged in shaping governance frameworks

All speakers emphasized the importance of a multi-stakeholder approach in addressing digital governance issues and implementing the Global Digital Compact.

Need for capacity building

Rasmus Lumi

Sabhanaz Rashid Diya

Adeboye Adegoke

Fiona Alexander

Capacity building is needed for stakeholders to engage effectively

FOC serves as a platform to build capacity and expertise

Sustained funding is needed to strengthen IGF’s capacity

Multiple speakers highlighted the importance of capacity building to enable effective participation in digital governance discussions, particularly for stakeholders from the global majority.

Similar Viewpoints

These speakers emphasized the importance of local and national processes in implementing digital governance principles and engaging stakeholders effectively.

Sabhanaz Rashid Diya

Adeboye Adegoke

Olaf Kolfman

Local and national processes are key for implementing GDC principles

Bottom-up involvement and local initiatives are important

These speakers highlighted the importance of aligning digital governance with human rights principles and ensuring diverse voices are included in shaping these frameworks.

Rasmus Lumi

Emilar Gandhi

Sabhanaz Rashid Diya

FOC can play a role in GDC implementation aligned with human rights

Private sector has a role in contributing to rights-respecting digital future

Global majority voices need to be engaged in shaping governance frameworks

Unexpected Consensus

Limitations of UN processes in New York

Fiona Alexander

Rasmus Lumi

New York UN processes have limited ability to involve stakeholders meaningfully

There was an unexpected consensus on the limitations of UN processes in New York to meaningfully involve stakeholders, with both government and academic representatives acknowledging this challenge.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The main areas of agreement included the importance of multi-stakeholder approaches, the need for capacity building, the significance of local and national processes, and the alignment of digital governance with human rights principles.

Consensus level

There was a high level of consensus among speakers on the importance of inclusive and rights-respecting digital governance. This consensus suggests a strong foundation for collaborative efforts in implementing the Global Digital Compact and strengthening multi-stakeholder processes in digital governance.

Different Viewpoints

Effectiveness of New York UN processes in involving stakeholders

Filippo Pierozzi

Fiona Alexander

GDC implementation should involve multi-stakeholder engagement

New York UN processes have limited ability to involve stakeholders meaningfully

While Pierozzi emphasizes the importance of multi-stakeholder engagement in GDC implementation, Alexander argues that New York UN processes are inherently limited in their ability to meaningfully involve stakeholders.

Unexpected Differences

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement revolve around the effectiveness of UN processes in New York for stakeholder engagement and the best approaches for implementing the Global Digital Compact.

difference_level

The level of disagreement among the speakers is relatively low. Most speakers agree on the importance of multi-stakeholder engagement and the need for inclusive digital governance. The differences mainly lie in the specific approaches and emphasis on different aspects of implementation. This suggests a general consensus on the overall goals, which could facilitate collaborative efforts in addressing digital governance challenges.

Partial Agreements

Both speakers agree on the importance of implementing the GDC, but differ on the approach. Lumi emphasizes the role of FOC in implementation, while Alexander suggests implementation is already happening through existing initiatives.

Rasmus Lumi

Fiona Alexander

FOC can play a role in GDC implementation aligned with human rights

GDC implementation is already underway through existing initiatives

Both speakers recognize the importance of the IGF, but while Gengo focuses on its role as an inclusive dialogue space, Alexander emphasizes the need for sustained funding to strengthen its capacity.

Anja Gengo

Fiona Alexander

IGF serves as an inclusive space for dialogue on digital policy issues

Sustained funding is needed to strengthen IGF’s capacity

Similar Viewpoints

These speakers emphasized the importance of local and national processes in implementing digital governance principles and engaging stakeholders effectively.

Sabhanaz Rashid Diya

Adeboye Adegoke

Olaf Kolfman

Local and national processes are key for implementing GDC principles

Bottom-up involvement and local initiatives are important

These speakers highlighted the importance of aligning digital governance with human rights principles and ensuring diverse voices are included in shaping these frameworks.

Rasmus Lumi

Emilar Gandhi

Sabhanaz Rashid Diya

FOC can play a role in GDC implementation aligned with human rights

Private sector has a role in contributing to rights-respecting digital future

Global majority voices need to be engaged in shaping governance frameworks

Key Takeaways

Multi-stakeholder engagement is crucial for effective and inclusive digital governance

The Global Digital Compact (GDC) implementation should involve diverse stakeholders

Local and national processes are key for implementing global digital governance principles

Capacity building is needed to enable meaningful participation from all stakeholders

The Internet Governance Forum (IGF) serves as an important inclusive space for dialogue

New York-based UN processes have limitations in involving stakeholders meaningfully

Technical expertise is necessary to underpin digital governance discussions

Resolutions and Action Items

FOC to continue supporting multi-stakeholder engagement in digital governance

Stakeholders encouraged to engage in local and national digital governance processes

Focus on renewing and strengthening the IGF mandate in upcoming WSIS+20 review

Work towards securing sustained funding for the IGF

Unresolved Issues

How to effectively integrate multi-stakeholder input into New York-based UN processes

Balancing multilateral and multi-stakeholder approaches in global digital governance

Addressing power asymmetries within multi-stakeholder processes

How to ensure meaningful participation from marginalized and underrepresented groups

Suggested Compromises

Using FOC and other platforms to channel multi-stakeholder input into intergovernmental processes

Focusing on general principles in global frameworks while allowing for local implementation

Governments including diverse stakeholders in their delegations to international forums

The GDC sets out a vision for digital cooperation built on principles ingrained in sustainable development and human rights, both mutually dependent and reinforcing, as well as for global internet and AI governance.

speaker

Ernst Noorman

reason

This comment frames the Global Digital Compact as integrating human rights, sustainable development, and technology governance in an interconnected way. It sets the tone for discussing digital governance as a holistic issue.

impact

It established key themes of human rights, sustainability, and inclusive governance that were echoed throughout the rest of the discussion by multiple speakers.

Even when we are in these kinds of spaces, and I think that’s where the technical community, the private sector, governments have a tremendous role to play in terms of how do we ensure that when groups have access to international spaces, are sitting on these tables, they’re active.

speaker

Sabhanaz Rashid Diya

reason

This comment highlights the importance of not just nominal inclusion, but meaningful participation of diverse stakeholders in governance processes.

impact

It shifted the conversation to focus more on capacity building and empowerment of stakeholders, rather than just formal inclusion. Several subsequent speakers emphasized the need for capacity building.

If you train a large language model and you provide it with incomplete input, it will start to hallucinate. And I think that the multi-stakeholder mechanisms, if you do not provide all the inputs that you have at the table, the output of the process will be a hallucination.

speaker

Olaf Kolfman

reason

This analogy creatively illustrates the importance of diverse stakeholder input for effective governance.

impact

It reinforced the importance of multi-stakeholder approaches and technical expertise in a memorable way, influencing subsequent comments on inclusive processes.

My takeaway from this past year’s experience is that the New York processes, by design and by structure, are limited in their way to involve stakeholders. And I don’t see a meaningful way to change that.

speaker

Fiona Alexander

reason

This comment provides a critical perspective on the limitations of UN processes for multi-stakeholder engagement.

impact

It sparked discussion about alternative approaches and the importance of local and national initiatives, shifting focus away from solely UN-centered processes.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by emphasizing the interconnected nature of digital governance issues, the need for meaningful participation beyond formal inclusion, the critical importance of diverse stakeholder input, and the limitations of existing international processes. They collectively steered the conversation towards exploring more inclusive, bottom-up approaches to digital governance that leverage local and national initiatives alongside international efforts.

How can the implementation of the Global Digital Compact be made more multi-stakeholder in nature?

speaker

Filippo Pierozzi

explanation

This is important to ensure that the implementation process is inclusive and reflects diverse perspectives, despite the intergovernmental nature of the GDC.

How can we strengthen the IGF to make it more effective in producing actionable outcomes?

speaker

Adeboye Adegoke

explanation

This is crucial for enhancing the IGF’s role in shaping internet governance and ensuring it leads to concrete results.

How can we build capacity among diverse stakeholders, especially those from the global majority, to participate effectively in international digital governance processes?

speaker

Sabhanaz Rashid Diya and Adeboye Adegoke

explanation

This is essential for ensuring meaningful participation from all regions and stakeholder groups in shaping the future of the internet.

How can we ensure sustained funding for the IGF?

speaker

Fiona Alexander

explanation

This is important for the long-term stability and effectiveness of the IGF as a key platform for internet governance discussions.

How can we evolve from a multi-stakeholder to a multi-disciplinary approach in internet governance discussions?

speaker

Anja Gengo

explanation

This is important to ensure that all relevant disciplines are involved in shaping internet governance, given the increasing integration of digital technologies across various sectors.

How can we better leverage local and national initiatives to influence international internet governance processes?

speaker

Rasmus Lumi and Fiona Alexander

explanation

This is crucial for ensuring that global governance reflects diverse local and national perspectives and experiences.

Summary

This discussion focused on incorporating human rights considerations into technical standards for emerging technologies, particularly in the context of artificial intelligence (AI) and digital governance. Participants from various sectors, including government, civil society, and international organizations, emphasized the importance of a multi-stakeholder approach in developing standards that respect human rights.

Key points included the need to break down silos between human rights experts and technical communities, and the challenges of involving diverse stakeholders in the standard-setting process. Speakers highlighted the importance of considering human rights from the inception of new technologies, rather than as an afterthought. The discussion touched on specific issues such as linguistic diversity in AI development, privacy concerns, and the potential for discrimination in AI systems.

Participants stressed the financial and resource challenges faced by civil society organizations and small enterprises in participating in standards development processes. They called for more accessible ways to contribute to these discussions, such as through workshops and targeted input opportunities. The role of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) in facilitating these conversations was emphasized.

The discussion also addressed the responsibilities of tech companies in respecting human rights, with mention of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. Speakers noted the importance of human rights due diligence in both company operations and standard-setting organizations. The Global Digital Compact was highlighted as a key framework for advancing human rights in technical standards.

Overall, the discussion underscored the critical need for collaboration between technical experts, human rights advocates, governments, and industry to ensure that emerging technologies and their governing standards protect and promote human rights.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– The importance of incorporating human rights considerations into technical standards for emerging technologies

– Challenges in involving diverse stakeholders, especially civil society and marginalized groups, in standards development processes

– The need for a multi-stakeholder approach and breaking down silos between technical and human rights communities

– Balancing innovation with ethical considerations and human rights protections

– The role of governments, companies, and international organizations in promoting human rights-aligned standards

Overall purpose:

The goal of this discussion was to explore how human rights principles can be better integrated into technical standards for digital technologies, and to identify challenges and potential solutions for making standards development processes more inclusive and rights-respecting.

Tone:

The tone was largely collaborative and solution-oriented. Speakers approached the topic from different perspectives but shared a common interest in improving standards processes. The tone became more urgent when discussing the need for concrete actions and greater civil society involvement. Overall, there was a sense of cautious optimism about the potential for positive change if stakeholders work together effectively.

Speakers

– Dhevy Sivaprakasam: Consultant, OHCHR

– Olivier Alais: Program Coordinator, ITU

– Marek Janovský: First Secretary for Cyber Diplomacy at the Permanent Mission of the Czech Republic in Geneva

– Shirani De Clercq: Expertise France Economist, seconded at the Saudi Ministry of Digital Technology

– Yoo Jin Kim: Representative from OHCHR

– Gbenga Sesan: Executive Director of Paradigm Initiative

– Florian Ostmann: Director of Innovation at Alan Turing Institute

Additional speakers:

– Mizna Tregi: Representative for the Saudi Green Building Forum

Incorporating Human Rights into Technical Standards: A Multi-Stakeholder Approach

This discussion at the Internet Governance Forum in Riyadh focused on the critical need to incorporate human rights considerations into technical standards for emerging technologies, particularly in the context of artificial intelligence (AI) and digital governance. Participants from various sectors, including government, civil society, and international organisations, emphasised the importance of a multi-stakeholder approach in developing standards that respect human rights.

Key Themes and Arguments:

1. Multi-stakeholder Collaboration and Breaking Silos

Participants stressed the necessity of involving diverse stakeholders in the development of technical standards. Dhevy Sivaprakasam, the moderator, highlighted the need for a multi-stakeholder approach to include diverse perspectives. Marek Janovský emphasized the importance of breaking silos between human rights experts and technical bodies, and stressed the government’s role in fostering dialogue and outreach, particularly in including youth and emerging tech companies.

Gbenga Sesan, Executive Director of Paradigm Initiative, emphasised civil society’s role in bringing user experiences to standards discussions. Olivier Alais, representing the ITU, underscored the need for collaboration between public, private, and civil society sectors, and mentioned the Freedom Online Coalition’s joint statement linking technical standards and human rights.

2. Balancing Innovation with Human Rights Considerations

The discussion explored the challenge of integrating human rights considerations into technical standards without impeding innovation. Shirani De Clercq, an economist from Expertise France, highlighted the tension between economic objectives and ethical principles in AI development. She also discussed Saudi Arabia’s context, mentioning the AI ethics principles issued by SADAYA and the AI Adoption Framework.

Gbenga Sesan argued that considering human rights and user experiences can actually promote innovation by improving services and experiences. He also raised the issue of internet shutdowns and their impact on human rights.

3. Challenges in Implementation

Several speakers highlighted practical challenges in implementing human rights-based standards. Financial and resource constraints for inclusive participation were noted by audience members and speakers alike. Florian Ostmann emphasised the need for lowering barriers to participation in standards development, particularly for civil society and small and medium enterprises (SMEs). He also stressed the importance of considering the use of technology, not just the properties of systems.

Yoo Jin Kim, representing OHCHR, stressed the importance of human rights due diligence by companies and standards bodies. Kim also highlighted the critical risks to human rights from emerging technologies, particularly noting the lack of transparency in AI development and use. She mentioned the Global Digital Compact (GDC) and its relevance to human rights in technical standards.

4. Specific Concerns and Examples

Shirani De Clercq raised an important point about linguistic diversity in AI development, noting that while 7% of internet users are native Arabic speakers, only 0.8% of internet content is in Arabic. She also mentioned the Gaia Accelerator project in Saudi Arabia and discussed the PDLP (Saudi Arabia’s equivalent to GDPR) and its implications for data privacy.

Marek Janovský highlighted the challenges of neuroscience and brain-related technologies. An audience member raised concerns about blockchain standards making.

Florian Ostmann provided specific examples of human rights implications of AI, such as bias in recruitment algorithms and the use of AI in law enforcement.

Conclusion and Future Directions:

The discussion underscored the critical need for collaboration between technical experts, human rights advocates, governments, and industry to ensure that emerging technologies and their governing standards protect and promote human rights. While there was general consensus on the importance of incorporating human rights into technical standards, the practical challenges of implementation remain significant.

Key takeaways included the need to lower barriers for participation in standards development processes, especially for civil society and SMEs, the importance of agile methodology in implementing standards, and the need to consider both the properties and use of technology in standards development.

Unresolved issues include creating scalable models for integrating human rights into technical standards without slowing innovation, addressing financial and resource constraints that limit participation, and effectively balancing economic objectives with ethical principles in standards development.

The discussion highlighted the complexity of the challenge but also demonstrated a growing recognition of the interconnectedness between technical standards and human rights. This suggests a potential shift towards more inclusive and rights-based approaches in technology development and governance, though significant work remains to be done to realise this vision.

Dhevy Sivaprakasam: Okay, so good afternoon in Riyadh and good morning, good night, wherever everyone is. We’re happy to introduce you all to the session today on building trust with technical standards and human rights. We all recognize in this IGF on the multi-stakeholder approach that there is a real need to have a rights-based approach to technical standards. And here we have today, and we’re very happy to introduce quite a number of good experts in the room from civil society, government, and corporate perspective as well. I will now just hand over to Olivier to give an initial introduction.

Olivier Alais: Thanks a lot and good afternoon and good morning to all colleagues and friends. So it’s a great honor to welcome you to this important session. So it’s co-organized by Czech Republic, ITU, and OHCHR. And today we come together to address critical questions and how can we include human rights in technical standards for emerging technologies to build trust in our digital future. At ITU, we understand that technical standards are the invisible foundation of our connected world and traditionally standards have been focused on two goals, technical accuracy and commercial success. And today we must add a third essential dimension, the human rights perspective. So this new approach requires us to ask important questions. It’s about how to protect privacy and data, how to ensure freedom of expression and access to information, how do we guarantee non-discrimination and inclusivity. So addressing this question, it’s vital to build a trust that ensures emerging technologies are widely adopted. and serve everyone. So what does this matter now? Technology like AI, Internet of Things, Metaverse, offer incredible opportunities, but they also create challenges. And without clear guidance, technology can unintentionally harm the very rights it aims to protect. That’s why collaboration is so important, and this type of panel is very important. For example, the Freedom Online Coalition delivered recently its first joint statement explicitly linking technical standards and human rights. The recent IT resolution on Metaverse is a milestone, it was two months ago. It is the first to explicitly reference human rights. Our partnership with OHCHR is also key, and with human rights specialists, and to the commitment to implement the Global Digital Compact by turning human rights principles into technical guidance. So thanks a lot

Dhevy Sivaprakasam: for your attention. I look forward to this conversation and to working together to ensure technology serves humanity’s best interests. So I’m giving you back the floor. Thank you. Thanks so much, Olivier. And to speak to these issues, we have five different speakers today, and I’m very happy to introduce them. Marek Janowski, First Secretary for Cyber Diplomacy at the Permanent Mission of the Czech Republic in Geneva, joining us online. Shirani de Klerk, Expertise France Economist, seconded at the Saudi Ministry of Digital Technology, on site next to me. Yujin Kim, my colleague from OHHR in Geneva, joining us online as well. Thanks, Yujin, for joining. And Benga Sasan, Executive Director of Paradigm Initiative on my right. And finally, but not last, Florian Osman, Director of Innovation at Alan Turing Institute, who’s also joining us online. So let’s kick off the discussion, starting off with Marek. So the first question we wanted to throw to you, just to hear your thoughts, is how can international cyber diplomacy efforts promote the inclusion of people with disabilities in the public sector? And we’ll start with you, Marek. Sure. So, of human rights in the development of technical standards for emerging technologies.

Marek Janovský: Hello everybody. I hope you can hear me. Greetings from Geneva from the Czech Permanent Mission. I’m glad to be here with you with the expert community. I will try to be brief. I hope not to exceed much time. So if I am too long, please don’t hesitate to stop me. I’ve got a few points and some questions. So to your question, actually the diplomatic cyber community, what we can do actually is to keep raising of our awareness to these matters. These matters of linking human rights and the development of the standards is not a self-standing issue. It’s actually linked to, let’s say, a broader international relations and how new and emerging technologies change these international relations. So we’re not talking about a vacuum. It’s a link. It’s a change of, let’s say, environment that we live in as humans and as societies. So that is one of the reasons why I think the diplomatic communities globally start to take interest and raising interest in these matters. So just by way of introduction, I wanted to just point on that. I think the first thing I would like to mention is the attention we need to pay to the whole cycle of new emerging technologies, of their development. What we’re working on here with ITU specifically and the UIC HR colleagues is one of the points in the cycle. It’s standard development, standardization, but there is also inception. There’s also, you know, the youth development. and also disposal of technologies that the other phases that need to be, let’s say, heated. And so we’re now talking to you, to the expert audience, I think that you have experience with the other ones as well. The third element I’d like to mention is that it’s important for us, for diplomatic cyber community, or let’s say new tech people working in diplomacy, is to try to break the silos between specifically the experts working on human rights, such as the High Commissioner’s office in Geneva or elsewhere as well, and specific bodies such as ITU or ISO or IEC, etc. or IEEE. It’s important that the ITU is not the only game in the town, and there are others that can join the efforts, and need to join the efforts in order for the tech and the digital transformation to be a success. Another point I would like to mention is the importance of youth. I’d like to actually just point out that young people, they’re actually even in Riyadh now, NGOs and others, they make a crucial part in this, so I’ll be actually quite happy to hear from them what they think about this important link. Maybe one of the other points is, and this is the question I wanted to basically raise, is how the IGF could help to actually advance this. Because the diplomatic community is one thing, but we need a wholesale approach to a change of paradigm in how we actually perceive the development and use of the new and emerging technologies. I think this is key that not only diplomatic communities, but others join in in this effort and, you know, each of us will play a role in making you know this a success because I don’t think that once we decided to follow this path of digital transformation. We don’t have much choice, but to try to make it safe and human rights based. Thank you very much.

Dhevy Sivaprakasam: Thank you very much. There was a really good overview actually of the multi stakeholder approach and maybe also zooming down now to the Saudi Arabia experience like to ask Shirani specifically on the work that you’ve been doing in Riyadh concerning non discrimination. What are the use cases illustrating the impact of technology biases in Saudi Arabia and what solutions have you seen being implemented here to address those challenges.

Shirani De Clercq: Thanks again for inviting me in this great panel. In our ministry, in the ministry where I work in, we have a technology foresight department. For their monthly meeting, someone in their team tests the latest apps on the market. And these days, mostly the AI, Gen AI, and presents its pros and cons during a meeting. One occurring theme that has been observed is the biases within these applications. A simple example, when you ask a Gen AI model to depict a traditional Saudi family, you sometimes end up having a Saudi woman with a men’s tube. We also have other stereotypes, but today just stick on to this image issue. Is it really a big deal to be represented, falsely misrepresented? In the digital world, an entire minority could be falsely represented or even erased. Erased from, for example, an AI assisted recruitment process. It could become a big issue in the long run. So bias in AI systems often stems from how data is collected and how models are trained. But improving the fairness of AI requires more than just diversifying the data sets. While ensuring the data reflects the full range of appearance and cultural practice in Saudi Arabia is crucial, we must also design AI systems that don’t automatically discard what they deem unusual. So equally important is the composition of the development team. Inclusive teams representing various backgrounds and experiences are more likely to recognize blind spots and feed algorithms with data that genuinely reflects their populations. For more UN videos visit www.un.org So, what do we do in these situations? In 2023, the Saudi Data and AI Authority, which is SADAYA, issued an AI ethics principle aimed at guiding organizations in the responsible use of their technologies. And recently, in September 2024, SADAYA issued the AI Adaption Framework designed in a use-case-driven methodology, a very flexible approach. There’s another issue on language. Have you ever heard of the principle of linguistic relativity? So it says that the way people think of the world is influenced directly by the language that people use to talk about it. While 7% of internet users are Arabic as its native speakers, only 0.8% of internet content is in Arabic. So a model trained on modern standard Arabic fails to understand regional dialects. So research shows that customizing models to local language variations significantly improves the accuracy. For example, ArabBERT, an Arabic-focused language model, boosts dialect identification accuracy from about 84% to 92% simply by incorporating more dialect-specific data. In doing so, we not only improve technology’s effectiveness but also ensure that the digital world genuinely represents Saudi linguistic and cultural richness. So it’s very important for us.

Dhevy Sivaprakasam: Yeah, now switching gears to also Yujin, maybe you could speak a bit more to what are the critical risks that OHHR sees emerging from these technologies on a broader level. We heard Shirani speak to the Saudi Arabian perspective and more maybe the global trends that we’ve been observing from the office. Thank you.

Yoo Jin Kim: Thanks so much and thank you. for this question. It’s great to see some familiar faces online and on site. So to start, I would mention again, our reports that we had published last year on the relationship between human rights and technical standards in relation to digital technologies. So to recap, you know, on one hand, the report showed that, you know, how technical standards are relevant to the enjoyment of human rights. For instance, stressing that many standards define processes and actions that directly respond to certain human rights related concerns. So to be more concrete, some examples include standards on privacy by design, privacy risk assessment, management, perhaps accessibility standards on the web, for example, which allow people with impaired vision to navigate and access the internet. So the ways in which these standards that I’ve mentioned, as an example, are the way they’re designed are important to protecting the right to privacy, for example, freedom of expression and association, the right to life, in essence, across the whole spectrum of human rights, although I’ve only listed just a few rights here. And let’s look at a few more recent examples. The Internet Engineering Task Force has done a great amount of work around this. And right now, they’re currently discussing an internet protocol related to air tags, and gender violence. So the working group on DULT, DULT stands for Detecting Unwanted Location Trackers Accessory Protocol. So this protocol is being discussed in ITF to protect people against being unknowingly tracked. And it’s discussing a real issue in a way, you know, that tackles gender domestic violence cases, to create a standard that allows the AirTags to communicate with Bluetooth devices, so that the person being tracked can detect and discover the hidden tag. So, and on the other side, I would say our report showed that the risks related to the standards development, for example, standards that define technical features that are necessary for digital infrastructures functioning, have particular relevance for human rights, as we have seen the transmission control protocol and HTTP. So in this case, the weakness or lack thereof, or lack of inscription in these protocols can facilitate mass surveillance programs that systematically undermine the right to privacy, and facilitate targeted surveillance both by the state and by non-state actors. So there have, of course, been some really important resolutions recently from the UN General Assembly, Human Rights Council, and our reports, of course, on human rights and technical standards. But other reports that we have issued, for example, on internet shutdowns, the rights of privacy in the digital age, stress the risks that relate to new and emerging technologies. And other reports, such as the use of AI in border management by law enforcement, which gets into the use of AI, for example, facial recognition technologies, real-time and disproportionate impacts that it has. And I think one important thing to note is the lack of transparency, which has really been the undertone in the development and design and the use of AI. And this really the lack of transparency and thus the lack of accountability has really led to some harm and increased risks to human rights. And let me just conclude now that while technical standards can have an important role in creating conditions that are conducive to exercising human rights, clearly there are cases and risks posed to human rights by the way human rights are, by the way standards are designed, but also the way they are deployed. So this is why we really need to put human rights at the center and front of digital technologies and the standards that underpin them. And we have to make sure that standard setting processes really rest on multi-stakeholder principles and become as transparent, inclusive, and open as possible.

Dhevy Sivaprakasam: Thank you. And yeah, so we heard from both Yujin and Shirani and also Marek on the importance of having voices from marginalized communities and minorities also involved in this process. And Marek mentioned also a change in paradigm, so it’s good to have someone from paradigm initiative. I’m sure you heard that many times. So Venga, how can civil society organizations influence the technical standard setting processes and include voices that traditionally excluded in

Gbenga Sesan: the room? Thank you. I definitely heard paradigm mentioned and I’ve been hearing that all week, so that’s great. It’s good to know that our brand is spreading. Just very quick things, and I’ve organized my response in under five P’s because then it makes it easier to remember. And the first is prioritization. It’s important for civil society to prioritize participation in conversations around technical standards. And I say that because for many years, even myself and a few colleagues had conversations around, is it worth it? Because it’s expensive to participate and you need to decide. And that is where you begin to ask yourself the question that what is the connection between human rights and these technical standards? And then thanks to the Office of the High Commission, your report and some of the conversations we’ve had have helped in terms of painting that picture that if you don’t have the conversations at the design stage and the standards are set, you will then end up with fighting the fires eventually. The second is participation, because it’s one thing to complain that there are issues, but it’s another thing to participate and to bring knowledge to the table. And I think this is really important because when you bring knowledge to the table, you may just be presenting a side of the conversation that people have not even considered at all. And we see that in our work when, for example, we have conversations with security agencies or with the judiciary, that what the knowledge we bring to the table about human rights, about digital rights, are obviously not what they discuss every day. So it’s helpful for them to see that. The third is partnership. I said earlier today in one of the sessions that we need to see the spirit of multi-stakeholderism in government delegations. It’s not just about governments being in the room and then civil society is in the room, but even the sense of government. So government is a representation of the people. So governments need to start going for technical standards conversations with civil society, with businesses that I believe they already go with, and with, of course, they don’t have a choice with the technical community, so that there’s a partnership that brings in all of these elements, which then brings me to my fourth point, which is people. Because at the end of the day, my suspicion and the reality is that the services that will use the standards are focused on markets. The market is made up of people. Markets are made up of people. So if the people are not at the center of the experience, it’s like the UX, you’re building a user experience. And I think that civil society has a unique opportunity to bring user lived experience to the table of these conversations. We were talking about internet fragmentation and we got all technical until we stepped back and said, wait a second, how does fragmentation affect the internet user? And that was very helpful. And of course, finally, is the process itself. I was glad to hear Eugene mentioned earlier, something about privacy by design. This is where we need to begin to have conversations about processes, such that anything, basically talking about human rights by design. So it’s not human rights consideration. It is a fact that human rights, because it is people focused, is at the center of the entire process. It’s at the center of the conversation that we’re having about technical standards.

Dhevy Sivaprakasam: Those are very important points. And I’m now going to turn to Florenta to speak about how to make that actually effective, to actually incorporate the human rights perspective into the technical. standard processes, and where you see the challenges in this. The tough question comes to you.

Florian Ostmann: Thank you very much, and thank you for the invitation. It’s great to be part of this discussion. So I’ll be speaking from the perspective of our work at the Alan Turing Institute, which is the UK’s national institute for AI, and an initiative that we set up a couple of years ago called the AI Standards Hub. I’ll say more about that later, if I get a chance. But just to say, our work is focused on AI rather than digital technologies more broadly, but I think a lot of the considerations apply more broadly as well. I think I won’t go into too much detail on why AI raises human rights implications. I think that’s already been eloquently set out by my previous colleagues on the panel. Just to illustrate, as we’ve heard, there are privacy implications. AI can have implications for physical safety, those important questions around non-discrimination, due process when AI is used in legal or administrative processes, and important questions around surveillance, just to name a few important human rights aspects. So it’s very clear that AI raises human rights questions. Now the question is, why is it important for human rights to be considered in the context of standardization for AI? I think one important thing to emphasize here is that standardization, we’ve seen over the last couple of years, is increasingly being looked at as a tool for AI governance, often through important links between regulation and standards. So in the EU context, for example, there’s a very important and direct link between the enforcement and implementation of the AI Act and the standards that are being developed at the European level. So standards aren’t just a standalone tool, but they do have important links to the broader landscape. and are considered increasingly an enabler for AI governance more broadly. And that’s why it’s important, I think, and absolutely critical, that human rights considerations are part of standardization. Otherwise, standards won’t be able to play that overall enabling role. One thing that I also want to briefly sort of emphasize or highlight is the importance to think about the use of technology rather than just properties of systems, because I think that’s an important shift to some extent if you think about traditional domains of standardization, where standards are primarily about properties and specifications for systems. That is very important in the AI context, as it is everywhere. But as we’ve heard already, some of the most critical human rights-related impacts in the AI context may be associated with the use of systems, regardless of whether their properties meet certain specifications. And so, again, that’s something where I think standardization needs to broaden its scope if standards are meant to play this broad role of governance enablers and think about the use rather than just properties of systems. Now, to the second part, what are the main challenges for including human rights expertise in standards development? I think at a high level, sort of two points. The first one is that we are dealing with two different cultures. You know, think about the standardization community and the human rights community. There are different conceptual frameworks at play, different languages and, you know, different cultures of collaborating. The second one is a simple point about simply being different communities. So the people involved in standardization traditionally aren’t, you know, are separate from the group of people who traditionally focused or have a professional focus on human rights and human rights due diligence. Now, the fact that there are these different communities means that stakeholders that have expertise in human rights and human rights due diligence are not particularly familiar in many cases with standardization as a field, and that creates obstacles for them to actively engage. It starts with the fact that the space is very complex, there’s a wide range of standards development organizations, they each have their own rules for participating, it’s difficult to understand, you know, what are the most important developments, what are the most important standards projects, and then how do I get involved in those, given that there are different rules. Secondly, obstacles around skills, so skills and knowledge about how does the standards development process work, knowledge about, you know, what are different types of standards, there’s a very common misconception, I think, around the notion of technical standards, we tend to avoid using the term technical standards, because it tends to imply, you know, the content of standards developed in organizations like the ITU ISO, by necessity is particularly technical. That is the case for some standards, it’s not the case for all standards. And that often creates misunderstandings. And then as a last point, of course, it has to be mentioned that there are important challenges around resourcing, as has already been mentioned by previous speakers as well, it’s important to recognize, I think, that think about the multi stakeholder approach to standards development, certain stakeholder groups, you know, have a business case for being involved in standard development industry, as the obvious example for that important pockets of human rights expertise, you know, are to be found outside of industries, especially in civil society space. And it’s much more difficult for civil society organizations to find resources and make the business case for being involved. That is changing. I mean, the awareness is changing, but the challenge of finding the resources remains remains the same, so far.

Dhevy Sivaprakasam: So much, Florian, I think at this time, we’d like to open the discussion to the floor and check if anyone would have any questions you would like to post to our speakers here. Sorry, I think. Apologies. Um, I think yeah. maybe it’s the time of the day, but maybe we can then move on to also other questions that we had for the speakers and maybe putting Marek back online. What role do you envision that the Czech Republic plays for governments in ensuring standards align with the multi-stakeholder process and also include human rights perspective in development?

Marek Janovský: Yeah, many, many thanks again on this national perspective. I’d like to just maybe refer very quickly to what I have already mentioned at the beginning of the panel. It’s the silos breaking. If we are to succeed, we need to make sure that people actually communicate. So the experts on both sides find a way to respect one another and do not disregard one another in terms of some kind of a joint work. I think it sounds banal, but it proved to be a very difficult thing to do from a diplomatic perspective. So that’s maybe one point. Again, breaking the silos, that’s what the Czech Republic in the EU does. I mean, not alone, because we would not have been able to do it, but we try to foster the even cross-regional, let’s say, dialogue. So as we have heard before, we need to talk, for example, the EU needs to talk with African countries because we’re actually facing some of the joint or challenges in this ever-increasing digital world. Linguistically, for example, as we have heard before, it’s the same issue. And I have to subscribe to the previous speaker saying that once we’re exposed to a different language, we think about a different language. We, of course, are subconsciously changed the way we perceive the world, that’s for sure. But there are other things which are similar to that, which actually are influencing our brains and thoughts. I’ll probably come back to that. Another point maybe worth mentioning outside of the outreach, which we want to foster also here, actually, through you guys. Again, the IGF would need to play a bigger role in this. And seriously, the Czech Republic would like to actually, not to task, but to ask the IGF to be of a help in this specific area of work. Because we think that we need more opinions, more, let’s say, recommendations from you, because you’re the experts that can actually help. Be it the governments, be it the civil society organizations, be it researchers, be it the private companies who are there. That brings me to the point of private companies. I think this is also one of the ways or elements that the Czech Republic is trying to foster. That’s why we’re extremely grateful for the OICHR’s project, BTEC, that is being at least run in Geneva. I think it would benefit from a worldwide coverage as well. Just trying to talk to not only the big tech, but trying to talk to the emerging and the SMEs. Again, to the young people who are actually driving companies who are at the, let’s say, frontier development of these applications. Because basically the world is going to be theirs and they need to step up and tell us how to do it as well. Not only to develop, but develop in a responsible way. So, I would end. there. And maybe just to say a few remarks, if I made to the previous conversation, it’s interesting to focus on standardization and on the use. I agree. But maybe a question to the audience or the other colleagues. When we talk about new technologies, such as sign neuroscience, and other things, other applications, which are going to be directly, which are you know, directly focusing on our brain activities on our thoughts, how can we improve the user’s capacities and skills? In my view, there’s no way it needs to be it needs to be already, let’s say, clean and responsible from the inception part, you know, the systemic proprieties need to be done in a in a in a good way in a responsible way. I don’t think that the user who is being swarmed by countless of applications and like, you know, internal things, connectivity, etc, is going to be able to focus on responsible usage and skills only, I think, just from a daily usage perspective, there’s no way. So again, the inception and the first phases of the development cycle are extremely key to get it right. Thank you.

Dhevy Sivaprakasam: Thanks so much, Mark. We have a lady in the room who would love to ask a question at this point. So we’ll just pass the mic.

Audience: First of all, thank you so much for this insightful discussion. And let me allow me to introduce myself. My name is Mizna Tregi. And I am the representative for the Saudi Green Building Forum, which is an organization committed to sustainable development and, and also fostering innovative principles. Now, the discussion highlighted a critical critical gaps in how human rights are considered in technical standards for emerging innovations. Despite the rapid advancement, overlooking these principles exposes marginalized groups to risks such as discrimination, privacy violations, and lack of transparency. Now, this challenge is further compounded by limited involvement of diverse stakeholders, which threatens to create unsafe and uninclusive technological environment. Now, to address these issues, there is a pressing need to ensure active participations from all sectors in the development of these technical standards. By integrating a human rights based approach, we can design the systems that prioritize transparency, fairness and accountability. Also, strengthening collaborations between public and private sector, and civil society is equally crucial to ensure these standards reflect the needs of all communities. Now moving forward, actionable steps include creating a human rights guide to align technical standards with principles like equality, equity and justice. Also, we can establish a robust multi stakeholder platform that can foster the exchange of experiences and expertise, and also best best practices, while regular human rights impact assessments will ensure alignment with sustainable development goals. Now, my question is, how can we create a scalable models for for integrating human rights into technical standards without slowing the pace of innovation, as well as how can we involve as, as His Excellency said, the private sector to implement these standards? Thank you.

Dhevy Sivaprakasam: Thank you so much. That was a really good question. I would just invite anyone in the room to come in on that because I think you raised multiple points that actually spoke to all of what all of the speeches of the panelists today. So anyone who wants to respond?

Gbenga Sesan: Thanks, that’s that’s a fantastic question, actually, because one of one of the reasons this is fantastic is because it actually takes us to the center of innovation. You know, question is how, how do we ensure standards are human rights compliant, without slowing down the pace of innovation. And I think it’s important to say this. Innovation is about providing improving experiences, right? Improving experiences, making services better, and doing things in different ways. And at the center of innovation are the people who interact with these experiences. And the whole sense of human rights is basically saying we want to make sure that the rights of those who engage with these platforms, who interact with these experiences is respected. A very simple example that I love to give is internet shutdowns. If we build if we bake the fact that shutdowns are not allowed, which is now part of the GDC, all countries have now agreed 29, 29 D that there, you know, no shutdowns, that itself doesn’t slow down the improvement of the internet, but it accelerates it. It means that people can use it, people can give feedback, people can have an experience of the entire and not fragmented internet. So thanks for asking that, because it actually, you know, takes us to the point of, you know, why human rights conversations are also helpful with technical standards, because they actually promote the sense of innovation. It’s not about the people. It’s not about the person creating the tool, but about a user, like, you know, user experience, and how their rights are respected.

Dhevy Sivaprakasam: Can you hear us? Okay, because I’m just seeing from the chat that the audio from the room apparently is a bit low for participants online. Please do continue to type in the Yeah, do continue to type in the chat and we will try to get this sorted. Thanks. Yeah, I wanted to see if anyone else was interested in responding to the question that was posed. But if not, then I might actually move on because two questions both to Eugene and to Shirani that were directly linked to what you actually raised, which was for Shirani, in Saudi Arabia, you spoke about the challenges that of the inclusion of minorities and marginalized communities. What are the financial and social challenges that you see in Saudi Arabia? And what are the challenges that you see in Saudi Arabia? And you mentioned, you know, the inclusion of minorities and marginalized communities. What are the financial and social implications you think that needs to be tackled to tackle this issue?

Shirani De Clercq: Really response to something you approached one of your questions, the dilemma between financial revenue and ethical, social values, traditional values. So it’s always a dilemma and both of them. So that’s why I just took two or three examples. And there’s no answer, of course, because we don’t know. So so one of the projects of like, in the race for the AI leader, you have projected to contribute to 5.1 the AI is projected to contribute to $5.1 billion to GDP by 2030. So there are many projects, and one of them that I identified is the Gaia Accelerator, so pushed by, supported by Saddaia and NTDP. So it has invested $160 million to fund 120 AI startups in Saudi. So while these startups from its economic returns, in the implementation of Saddaia’s AI ethic principle that has been deployed in 2093 and the framework last year, it’s going to slow down the whole process. We have an objective with KPIs where the companies have to become future unicorns. So that’s our main objective. But on the other side, there are principles that comes in and we say that this has to be, by design, you have to include ethical values in it. Why do you do it, and how do you do it? The others are like unbiased data sets with financial constraints. So you know about the ALM, the Arabic language model, which has been developed by Saddaia. It addresses often found in global LLMs like GDP4 that poorly represents Arabic dialects. So while ALM bridges this gap, expanding such initiatives, it costs enormously. So what do you fund? These kind of languages are future unicorn that makes you proud. And something else which is more difficult to discuss, it’s like Nata platform. It has 1.8 million daily digital verification users. Or Tavak Kalam, you say it like that, right? Tavak Kalam? Kalam, yeah, Kalam. It’s just developed during the COVID period. Kalam, sorry for the pronunciation. There’s 19.9 million users. No, 17.9 million users, which is enormous. So on one side, you need data to reduce biases. Sorry, on one side, you need data to reduce biases. And on the other side, there’s the privacy law. Saudi Arabia has published, I think, in 2023 the PDLP, which is the equivalent to the GDPR to protect data privacy in Saudi Arabia. So the real question is the same as yours. How do you classify and prioritize what is the most important thing for a country? I suppose it depends on the time period of your economic situation, because not all countries will face the same problematic at the same time. And I’m really for the agile method. No standardization can be deployed on one shot. I think you have to try, adjust. And I have the feeling that the Sadeas AI framework, ethical framework, has this methodology, very agile, that means you test with a use case methodology. And if it works, you improve and improve and implement it one by one. Thank you.

Dhevy Sivaprakasam: Thanks, Yorani. Actually, just building on that point and also the fact that our kind speaker, I mean, participant raised earlier about principles and standards that are already there on human rights principles. Oh, sorry. Okay, so we have another question. So I’ll pause and please feel free to speak. Thank you.

Audience: Yeah, I think I’m sitting on the wrong side of the room. So I have a question about blockchain standards making and multilateralism in that. So we did a project. I’m from India. I worked on a project. It was an Indo-Australian project. We started working on blockchain standards. And it was a three-year project. And by the end of it, we were just looking at what the involvement in standardization processes for multilateral forums was. So we worked with BIS and then Standards Australia, but then we also worked in like an international level. And the problem that we found was that most people just didn’t participate in standardization processes, not because they didn’t know that it was important, but because it’s not practically feasible. So I think that it’s important to get like a civil society approach and then like from small and medium enterprises, but contributing to standards conversations, which is something that we’ve also attempted to do, is an extremely resource and time-intensive process. It’s something that requires significant upselling. You have to upskill yourself. You have to spend a lot of time working on these things. It’s also something that you don’t actually get paid for. So most of us do it in addition to the work that we do. So in that context, unless, like even when we did conclude our project, we came up with like a roadmap of how potentially standards organizations could get people more invested in the standards-making process. But I think unless there’s like significant incentives being offered, which some governments are doing, but a majority of them can’t really do, that’s not something that’s very likely to change. A large organization could potentially devote some people to participate in standards conversation. Small and medium enterprises just can’t afford it. Civil societies can’t really afford it. It requires a lot of expertise. It requires a lot of time. In that kind of, unless like standards-making conversation drastically changes in the next two years where it becomes possible to contribute without that much investment, I’m not sure how a multilateral conversation on standards would really work out.

Dhevy Sivaprakasam: That’s a really important point. And I do recognize Florian spoke a bit to this before. So yeah, Florian, please come in to respond.

Florian Ostmann: Yeah, thank you. I’ll just briefly come in also because I need to drop out in five minutes, I’m afraid. I think it’s a really important point. So we don’t work on blockchain, but I think the point applies more generally really, when it comes to civil society involvement in standards development for emerging technologies. I just thought I’d briefly give some examples of what we’ve done. I think that the problem really needs to be addressed at different layers. So one thing we’ve done in the AI space with the AI Standards Hub is to build a database of standards projects that are under development. That’s something that didn’t exist before. And so there’s a real challenge at a very foundational level for organizations that aren’t familiar with the space of understanding, tracking what is going on across the large number of SDOs that are active in the space, and then to be able to decide what is the standards project that’s with my limited resources is the one that I should be focused on and engaging. So that’s an example for how we try to contribute to solving that in the AI space through that kind of database that tracks those developments. Secondly, to your point on skills and upskilling, so we’ve developed a range of e-learning materials and we also have occasional in-person events. Some of those are not AI specific, so it might be useful if you’re interested to take a look. We have several e-learning modules on how the standardization process works and the role of different SDOs, for example. Then lastly, and I think that’s probably the most important point and where the most value lies, the biggest difference can be made, is thinking about ways for lowering the barrier to participating and contributing to standards development. Traditionally, of course, the way to contribute is to join a committee, whatever committee that is. In some organizations, if it’s ISO or… IEC or SenSenelec, it’s through the MIRO committee at the national level, in other cases it’s the study group directly like in the ITU, but it’s a formal process and it’s quite a time commitment that can be quite daunting and many organizations may feel they’re unable to commit to joining a committee. So we’ve been trying to experiment with ways of lowering that barrier in collaboration with SDOs, for example with SenSenelec and working group chairs, to create spaces through workshops, for example, that sort of on a one-off basis provide an opportunity for interested organizations, especially those that struggle. So we have a dedicated workstream to civil society or civil society organizations, you know, look at a project that’s under development and give targeted input on certain questions that the committee can then consider, you know, in the committee’s work. And I think that’s something we’ve had a lot of positive feedback on and we’ll try to do more. We’ll actually probably have a workshop for civil society organizations to feed into European standards for risk management for AI in February. So anyone who’s interested, please take a look at our website. We’ve been very, you know, pleased and proud of our partnership with Eugene and colleagues from OHCHR, have having done a couple of events together, and we’ll also be working together on a summit that the AI Standards Hub will be hosting in March. You’ll find more information on that global summit on AI standardization, where sort of civil society inclusion will be a really important focus.

Dhevy Sivaprakasam: Thanks very much, Florian. I just want to also share with the room a comment in the chat from Gopal. In my humble opinion, it’s best to have responsibilities before rights, making responsible citizens. Now netizens is crucial to building trust. using technology standards, we need a trust layer lower than the network layer in the ISO-OSI reference model. So thanks, Gopal. I think it’s also related to the question we asked to Eugene as you speak about responsibilities before rights. Eugene, could you speak a bit more on the project, the BTEC project that encourages companies to actually meet the responsibilities

Yoo Jin Kim: that they have to protect the rights of individuals as well? Sure, and I’m really glad to hear from my other colleagues on the panel here on the challenges non-technical community, the CSO, for example, face, which is, I think, really important to tackle. And just to note that we understand standard development takes time. It’s a complex and challenging environment. So really, we need all stakeholders involved in a continued effort in a collaborative manner to make sure that human rights are front and center to tech standards development. So it’s not something that we can flick on a switch or flick it off to make things happen. So I think also it really highlights the importance of a panel that we have here today with diverse participants on this panel. So I think I will focus a bit more, like you said, on the BTEC project and the role of companies and perhaps outline some of our next steps in the coming year. So the role of the tech companies is something in the standard setting space is something we would really like to stress and emphasize a bit more next year. We already engage with them with tech companies through our BTEC project, which was mentioned, which focuses on the role of tech companies and how they can operationalize the UN guiding principles on business and human rights. So within this BTEC project, our office has been able to provide or has been able to discuss how to foster business conduct responsibly when it comes to AI, provided practical guidance to tech companies. So operationalizing the UNGPs, for example. And recently we have a, we published a foundational paper on generative AI and also a taxonomy of human rights risks connected to generative AI. So this is really some of the examples and our more recent outputs we have in order to provide guidance to tech companies. And I’m happy to share a link where you can access these resources and the work that we have done so far. But the challenge now is really looking at how to engage meaningfully with companies on technical standards, human rights, because tech companies are a stakeholder group that is really crucial to be, to stay engaged because they take a part in standard setting processes. And sometimes in various fora, they’re the one driving some of this tech standards development. And so human rights to diligence is a key element. I think that should be highlighted. So human rights to diligence for both companies and for standard setting organizations. And in order for us to raise awareness vis-a-vis tech companies and also for standard development organizations, we will be conducting some consultations next year to better understand their view and how to better engage with them and better meaning more effectively. And this really, again, brings us to the importance of participation and multi-stakeholderism. It’s already been noted, but the challenge really is on getting non-technical communities involved. When I say that it’s civil society organizations, it’s academia, but also noting the disparity in participation for various reasons. between the global north and the global majority, and also the, you know, I think our, I heard from the floor as well, from other panelists, that we need to have more SMEs. I think Mark had mentioned this, the importance is also not just engaging with big tech, but looking at the ecosystem, right? We also need to be engaging with young entrepreneurs who are really at the frontiers of tech development, and also small and medium-sized enterprises. So, I think, I hope this is clear. I mean, there is enormous benefit to multi-stakeholder participation. Gbenga mentioned this, but, you know, it’s really important to bring in a perspective, you know, side of conversation that maybe no one in the room has heard before. And that’s really the value add of multi-stakeholder participation in developing tech technologies and standards that serve everybody. And in this sense, I would like to emphasize that IGF, you know, the Internet Governance Forum has been an important venue to discuss in a multi-stakeholder setting, you know, human rights and technical standards, but a host of other issues in this space. And that said, I think we’re now arriving at such critical juncture, right, with the steps to implementing the Global Digital Compact, the review of the multi-stakeholder model at the WSIS plus 20 next year. So, let me finish on a note by saying that in the GDC, if you look at line 58 in the adopted text, it places a great importance on human rights in relation to tech standards. It explicitly refers to AI standards that must respect human rights. So, we must also emphasize the importance of this forum to continue to discuss how to develop and deploy the technical standards that can be human rights respecting, and that will foster more public trust in different technologies. So thank you so much.

Dhevy Sivaprakasam: And that was a really good summary of the whole thing. And also at the end of the day, we are here at IGF and we hope to discuss this conversation at the next IGF in Norway. So it’s been great to have all of you online. I would like to maybe call upon Olivia if you had final words. I’ve been told that we have two minutes left and so we might get kicked out of the room. But Olivia, please do come in.

Olivier Alais: Thanks a lot. It was a very interesting conversation and thanks a lot for all being here. So of course, technical standard has to be human rights enablers. We need to be more collaborative and to have a multi-stakeholder effort. And we need also, and as we said, to come with actionable solution for technical community and really to be in line with a global digital compact. So thanks a lot for being here. And I heard that we are still all working together to move on standardization and human rights.

Dhevy Sivaprakasam: Yeah, Marek, Eugene, Lauren, Benga, and Charani. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you all. Bye-bye. Thank you. Bye everyone. Thank you. Thanks a lot to all. Thanks a lot to Jean-Claude also for being our reporter. Thank you. Thank you.

Agreement Points

Need for multi-stakeholder approach in technical standards development

Dhevy Sivaprakasam

Marek Janovský

Gbenga Sesan

Olivier Alais

Need for multi-stakeholder approach to include diverse perspectives

Government’s role in fostering dialogue and outreach

Civil society’s need to prioritize and participate in standards discussions

Need for collaboration between public, private and civil society sectors

Speakers agreed on the importance of involving various stakeholders, including governments, civil society, and private sector, in the process of developing technical standards to ensure diverse perspectives are considered.

Importance of integrating human rights considerations into technical standards

Dhevy Sivaprakasam

Marek Janovský

Yoo Jin Kim

Gbenga Sesan

Need for multi-stakeholder approach to include diverse perspectives

Importance of breaking silos between human rights experts and technical bodies

Critical risks to human rights from emerging technologies

Civil society’s role in bringing user experiences to standards discussions

Speakers emphasized the need to incorporate human rights considerations into technical standards development, highlighting the importance of collaboration between human rights experts and technical bodies.

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers highlighted the potential risks and challenges posed by emerging technologies, particularly AI, to human rights and fair representation.

Shirani De Clercq

Yoo Jin Kim

Challenges of bias and misrepresentation in AI systems

Critical risks to human rights from emerging technologies

Both Ostmann and the audience member emphasized the practical challenges faced by non-technical stakeholders, particularly civil society and small organizations, in participating in standards development processes due to resource constraints and complexity.

Florian Ostmann

Audience

Difficulties for non-technical stakeholders to engage in standards processes

Need for lowering barriers to participation in standards development

Financial and resource constraints for inclusive participation

Unexpected Consensus

Balancing innovation with human rights considerations

Audience

Gbenga Sesan

Balancing innovation pace with human rights considerations

Civil society’s role in bringing user experiences to standards discussions

While the audience member raised concerns about slowing innovation by integrating human rights considerations, Sesan unexpectedly argued that considering human rights and user experiences can actually promote innovation by improving services and experiences.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The main areas of agreement included the need for a multi-stakeholder approach in technical standards development, the importance of integrating human rights considerations into these standards, and the challenges faced by non-technical stakeholders in participating in the process.

Consensus level

There was a moderate to high level of consensus among the speakers on the importance of incorporating human rights into technical standards and the need for diverse stakeholder participation. This consensus implies a growing recognition of the interconnectedness between technical standards and human rights, suggesting a potential shift towards more inclusive and rights-based approaches in technology development and governance.

Different Viewpoints

Balancing innovation and human rights considerations

Shirani De Clercq

Audience

Tension between economic objectives and ethical principles

Balancing innovation pace with human rights considerations

De Clercq highlighted the dilemma between pursuing financial revenue and adhering to ethical principles in AI development, while an audience member questioned how to integrate human rights into technical standards without slowing innovation. This reflects a tension between rapid technological advancement and ensuring human rights protections.

Unexpected Differences

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement centered around balancing innovation with human rights considerations and the practical challenges of involving diverse stakeholders in technical standards development.

difference_level

The level of disagreement among speakers was relatively low. Most speakers agreed on the importance of incorporating human rights into technical standards and involving diverse stakeholders. The differences were mainly in the approaches to achieve these goals and the challenges faced in implementation. This suggests a general consensus on the overall direction, but highlights the complexity of practically integrating human rights considerations into technical standards development.

Partial Agreements

All speakers agreed on the importance of involving diverse stakeholders in technical standards development. However, they differed in their approaches: Janovský emphasized breaking silos, Sesan stressed civil society’s need to prioritize participation, while Ostmann highlighted the difficulties faced by non-technical stakeholders in engaging with these processes.

Marek Janovský

Gbenga Sesan

Florian Ostmann

Importance of breaking silos between human rights experts and technical bodies

Civil society’s need to prioritize and participate in standards discussions

Difficulties for non-technical stakeholders to engage in standards processes

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers highlighted the potential risks and challenges posed by emerging technologies, particularly AI, to human rights and fair representation.

Shirani De Clercq

Yoo Jin Kim

Challenges of bias and misrepresentation in AI systems

Critical risks to human rights from emerging technologies

Both Ostmann and the audience member emphasized the practical challenges faced by non-technical stakeholders, particularly civil society and small organizations, in participating in standards development processes due to resource constraints and complexity.

Florian Ostmann

Audience

Difficulties for non-technical stakeholders to engage in standards processes

Need for lowering barriers to participation in standards development

Financial and resource constraints for inclusive participation

Key Takeaways

There is a critical need to incorporate human rights considerations into technical standards for emerging technologies

A multi-stakeholder approach involving diverse perspectives is essential for developing inclusive and rights-respecting standards

Significant challenges exist in implementing human rights-based standards, including balancing innovation with rights protection and resource constraints for inclusive participation

Different stakeholders (government, private sector, civil society) have important roles to play in standards development

Breaking silos between human rights experts and technical bodies is necessary for effective collaboration

Resolutions and Action Items

Explore ways to lower barriers for participation in standards development processes, especially for civil society and SMEs

Conduct consultations with tech companies and standards organizations to better understand their views on human rights integration

Continue discussions on human rights and technical standards at future Internet Governance Forum meetings

Unresolved Issues

How to create scalable models for integrating human rights into technical standards without slowing innovation

How to address the financial and resource constraints that limit participation of civil society and SMEs in standards processes

How to effectively balance economic objectives with ethical principles in standards development

Suggested Compromises

Adopt an agile, use-case driven methodology for implementing ethical frameworks in standards, allowing for iterative improvements

Create spaces for targeted, one-off input from civil society organizations on specific standards projects, rather than requiring full committee membership

Technology like AI, Internet of Things, Metaverse, offer incredible opportunities, but they also create challenges. And without clear guidance, technology can unintentionally harm the very rights it aims to protect.

speaker

Olivier Alais

reason

This comment succinctly captures the core tension at the heart of the discussion – the promise and peril of new technologies in relation to human rights.

impact

It framed the entire conversation that followed, establishing the need to proactively consider human rights in technical standards.

Have you ever heard of the principle of linguistic relativity? So it says that the way people think of the world is influenced directly by the language that people use to talk about it. While 7% of internet users are Arabic as its native speakers, only 0.8% of internet content is in Arabic.

speaker

Shirani De Clercq

reason

This comment introduced a concrete example of how technical standards can have real-world impacts on human rights and cultural representation.

impact

It shifted the discussion from abstract principles to specific challenges, prompting others to consider more tangible examples of bias and exclusion in technology.

I think one important thing to note is the lack of transparency, which has really been the undertone in the development and design and the use of AI. And this really the lack of transparency and thus the lack of accountability has really led to some harm and increased risks to human rights.

speaker

Yoo Jin Kim

reason

This comment highlighted a critical issue in AI development that directly impacts human rights considerations.

impact

It deepened the conversation by introducing the concepts of transparency and accountability, which became recurring themes in subsequent comments.

I think at a high level, sort of two points. The first one is that we are dealing with two different cultures. You know, think about the standardization community and the human rights community. There are different conceptual frameworks at play, different languages and, you know, different cultures of collaborating.

speaker

Florian Ostmann

reason

This insight gets to the heart of why integrating human rights into technical standards is so challenging.

impact

It reframed the discussion from being solely about technical challenges to also considering cultural and communication barriers between different expert communities.

Innovation is about providing improving experiences, right? Improving experiences, making services better, and doing things in different ways. And at the center of innovation are the people who interact with these experiences. And the whole sense of human rights is basically saying we want to make sure that the rights of those who engage with these platforms, who interact with these experiences is respected.

speaker

Gbenga Sesan

reason

This comment reframes the potential conflict between innovation and human rights as a false dichotomy, arguing that respecting human rights is central to true innovation.

impact

It challenged the assumption that considering human rights might slow innovation, offering a new perspective on how they can be mutually reinforcing.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by moving it from abstract principles to concrete challenges, highlighting the complexity of integrating human rights into technical standards. They introduced important concepts like transparency, accountability, and cultural differences between expert communities. The discussion evolved to consider not just technical solutions, but also cultural, linguistic, and collaborative challenges in ensuring human rights are respected in technological development. Overall, the comments deepened the conversation and broadened its scope, emphasizing the need for a multi-stakeholder, culturally sensitive approach to addressing these challenges.

How can the IGF help to advance the inclusion of human rights in technical standards?

speaker

Marek Janovský

explanation

This is important to explore how the multi-stakeholder IGF forum can contribute to addressing this challenge beyond just diplomatic efforts.

How to improve users’ capacities and skills to engage responsibly with emerging technologies that directly interface with brain activities and thoughts?

speaker

Marek Janovský

explanation

This is crucial to consider as technologies like neuroscience applications become more prevalent and potentially impact human cognition and decision-making.

How can we create scalable models for integrating human rights into technical standards without slowing the pace of innovation?

speaker

Audience member (Mizna Tregi)

explanation

This addresses the challenge of balancing human rights considerations with technological progress and innovation.

How can we involve the private sector to implement human rights-aligned technical standards?

speaker

Audience member (Mizna Tregi)

explanation

This is important to ensure buy-in and practical implementation from key stakeholders developing and deploying technologies.

How can standards-making conversations be changed to allow for more inclusive participation without requiring extensive time and resource investments?

speaker

Audience member (unnamed)

explanation

This addresses the practical challenges faced by civil society and small/medium enterprises in contributing to standards development processes.

Summary

This transcript captures the closing session of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) 2024 held in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Participants provided feedback and reflections on the event, as well as suggestions for future IGFs. Many speakers expressed gratitude to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia for hosting and praised the organization of the forum. Key points of discussion included the importance of youth participation, with several young delegates highlighting their experiences and calling for greater youth involvement in future IGFs.

Accessibility and inclusion were emphasized, with suggestions to better accommodate people with disabilities and ensure broader representation from developing countries. Visa processes were generally praised for being swift, though some noted challenges for certain participants. Several speakers stressed the need for the IGF to have a permanent mandate and stronger institutional capacity to address emerging digital challenges effectively.

Technical issues, particularly related to hybrid participation, were noted as areas for improvement. The importance of Internet governance schools and regional initiatives was highlighted. Many participants called for greater focus on emerging technologies like AI, emphasizing the need for ethical considerations and international cooperation in governance.

The discussion also touched on the significance of child rights, cybersecurity, and data privacy. Some speakers suggested enhancing collaboration with UN agencies and other stakeholders to increase the IGF’s impact. Overall, the session reflected a strong commitment to the IGF’s multi-stakeholder approach and its role in shaping global internet governance, with participants looking forward to the next IGF in Norway.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– Appreciation for Saudi Arabia’s hosting and organization of IGF 2024

– Suggestions for improving future IGFs, including visa processes, accessibility, youth involvement, and technical aspects

– Calls to renew and strengthen the IGF mandate

– Importance of multi-stakeholder collaboration and inclusivity

– Need to address emerging technologies like AI and cybersecurity

The overall purpose of this discussion was to gather feedback and suggestions from participants about IGF 2024 and ideas for improving future IGFs. It served as a “listening session” for organizers to hear directly from attendees.

The tone was largely positive and appreciative, with many speakers thanking the hosts and expressing enthusiasm for the event. There was also a sense of constructive criticism, with participants offering specific suggestions for improvement. The tone remained consistent throughout, balancing gratitude with a forward-looking focus on enhancing future IGFs.

Speakers

Speakers from provided list:

– Chengetai Masango: Head of the IGF Secretariat

– Carol Roach: Chair of the 2024 MAG

– Ole-Martin Martinsen: 2025 host country chair

– Vint Cerf: Chair of the leadership panel

Additional speakers:

– Jordan Carter: Technical community participant, outgoing MAG member, from Australian Domain Administration

– Adam Peake: ICANN

– Dr. Huseyfi (name may be misspelled): Chad IGF coordinator

– Daa (surname missing): Host country Youth Track representative

– Rui Ferreira: Brazilian Youth Delegation from CGI

– Joao Moreno: Vice chair of the youth standing group

– Itzel: Fellow from the Dynamic Coalition of Accessibility and Disability

– Ghayr Bawari: Coordinator of Afghanistan IGF and affiliate initiatives

– Yusuf Abdel-Qadir: From Syracuse University and Africa Community Internet Program

– Ananda Gautam: Representative of Youth IGF Nepal, Internet Society Youth Standing Group and Youth Coalition on Internet Governance

– Jasmine Ko: Participant from Hong Kong

– Josephine Miliza: Association for Progressive Communication

– Dr. Andrise Bass: Executive Director for Institute of Public Policy and Diplomacy Research, hub for IGF in Dominican Republic

Expanded Summary of IGF 2024 Closing Session

The closing session of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) 2024, held in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, served as a platform for participants to reflect on the event and offer suggestions for future IGFs. The discussion encompassed a wide range of topics, from logistical considerations to strategic visions for the forum’s future.

Organisation and Logistics

Many speakers expressed gratitude to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia for hosting and praised the overall organisation of the forum. However, several areas for improvement were identified. Vint Cerf, Chair of the leadership panel, highlighted audio and technical issues that needed addressing, suggesting a post-meeting analysis to resolve these problems. Jordan Carter, from the technical community, emphasised the importance of practising the hybrid format in advance to ensure smoother execution.

The visa process received mixed feedback. While some praised its swiftness, others noted challenges for certain participants, particularly those from developing countries. There were calls for faster approval letters and a more streamlined application process to facilitate broader participation. Specific examples included delays in receiving invitation letters and difficulties for participants from certain regions.

Inclusivity and Representation

A significant portion of the discussion centred on enhancing inclusivity and representation at future IGFs. Itzel, a fellow from the Dynamic Coalition of Accessibility and Disability, made a compelling case for involving people with disabilities in the IGF planning process to ensure compliance with accessibility guidelines. Vint Cerf supported this notion, suggesting the formation of an accommodation expert team to visit future IGF sites well in advance. He also proposed using colored badges for people with accommodation needs to facilitate easier assistance.

Youth participation emerged as a key theme, with several young delegates highlighting their experiences and calling for greater involvement in future IGFs. Daa, the host country Youth Track representative, emphasized the importance of the Youth Track and its role in engaging young people in internet governance discussions. Representatives from various youth initiatives, including the Nepal Youth IGF and the Youth Coalition on Internet Governance, stressed the need for increased youth representation and engagement.

The importance of ensuring participation from developing countries was repeatedly emphasised, with speakers noting the need for improved regional representation, particularly from Latin America. This point underscored the broader goal of making the IGF truly global and inclusive.

IGF Mandate and Future Direction

There was strong support for extending and strengthening the IGF mandate. Jordan Carter voiced the need for a permanent IGF mandate, a sentiment echoed by other participants who called for increased institutional capacity to address emerging digital challenges effectively. The integration of the Global Digital Compact into the next phase of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) was proposed as a crucial step in this direction.

Speakers emphasised the need for a clear, unified strategy for the IGF to maximise its collective impact. The APC representative stressed the importance of a strategic vision for IGF evolution rather than relying on ad hoc partnerships or initiatives. This strategic focus was seen as essential for addressing the dynamic challenges and opportunities in the rapidly evolving digital landscape.

Key Topics for Future IGFs

Participants highlighted several critical areas for future IGF discussions:

1. Artificial Intelligence (AI) Governance: There was a strong emphasis on the need to address AI governance and ethics, with calls for responsible development and use of AI technologies.

2. Cybersecurity and Privacy: Speakers stressed the importance of safeguarding data privacy, security, and integrity in an increasingly interconnected world.

3. Emerging Technologies: Discussions on the impact of emerging technologies, including the Internet of Things (IoT), were deemed crucial for promoting economic growth and sustainable development. The need for consistent standards and regulations across national borders was also highlighted.

4. Child Online Safety: Continued focus on protecting children in the digital space was advocated by several participants.

5. Beneficiaries: A Saudi participant suggested focusing on specific beneficiaries such as children and women in future discussions.

IGF Impact and Outreach

A recurring theme was the need to enhance the IGF’s impact and outreach. Ananda Gautam, representing various youth initiatives, pointed out that even UN agencies often fail to recognise the importance of the IGF. He emphasized the need for broader collaboration to enhance the impact of IGF when participants return to their communities. This led to calls for improved collaboration with international initiatives and UN agencies to increase the IGF’s visibility and effectiveness.

Suggestions were made to increase engagement with universities and support Internet Governance Schools, which were seen as vital for bringing holistic and engaging stakeholders into the IGF ecosystem. The importance of regional initiatives and their role in broadening the IGF’s reach was also highlighted. Nnena suggested engaging more with non-government stakeholders for the sustainability of IGF.

Technical Considerations and Program Structure

The challenges of managing hybrid events were discussed, with Joao Moreno, Vice Chair of the youth standing group, suggesting the need to unify the queue for online and on-site participants. This highlighted the ongoing challenges of ensuring equal participation opportunities for both in-person and remote attendees.

Moreno also raised concerns about the limited space given to Dynamic Coalitions to present their year-long discussions, emphasizing the need for better integration of these important groups into the main program.

Cultural Exchange and Networking

Jasmine Ko highlighted the importance of social occasions, such as the music night, for cultural exchange and networking. These events were seen as valuable opportunities for participants to connect informally and build relationships beyond the formal sessions.

Conclusion

The closing session reflected a strong commitment to the IGF’s multi-stakeholder approach and its role in shaping global internet governance. While participants expressed overall satisfaction with IGF 2024, they also provided constructive criticism and forward-looking suggestions. The discussion underscored the need for continuous improvement in organisation, inclusivity, and strategic focus to ensure the IGF remains relevant and effective in addressing the complex challenges of the digital age.

Chengetai Masango mentioned the post-IGF “taking stock” process, encouraging participants to continue providing feedback. The session concluded with brief closing remarks by Carol Roach and Ole-Martin Martinsen, followed by applause for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and all participants. As the forum looks ahead to its next iteration in Norway, there is a clear mandate to build upon these insights and work towards an even more impactful and inclusive IGF.

Chengetai Masango: I’d like first of all to thank you all very much for sticking it out and for being here, and I hope you all had a very good meeting, and I’d also like to thank our gracious hosts of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia for hosting us in this fabulous place. Just a few points is that we’re here in a listening mode on what worked well, what you think we want to keep, and what we should take into consideration for next year as well. So what we’ll do is that we’ll just have one line on this podium over here, and we ask people to line up and speak. We will only have two minutes for each person, and we’ll also be taking online interventions as well. I’d like to remind everybody please to keep to the subject at hand, and only about logistical, room arrangements, issues that we’ve discussed here, and also keep in mind the code of conduct, which is also very important. And with that, I would also introduce myself. So my name is Chengetai Masango, and I am head of the IGF Secretariat, and on my right is Miss Carol Roach. She is the chair of the 2024 MAG, which helped, of course, organize this meeting. And on my left, we have Mr. Ole-Martin Martisen, who is the 2025 host country chair. and is going to be listening intently because he’ll be the host country representative on the MAG and also leading the organizational team for IGF 2025. I would like to ask our current chair if she would like to say a few words, please.

Carol Roach: Thank you, Shengetai. I just want to add my welcome and thank you to Shengetai’s opening. It’s been really a pleasure meeting many of you, and I really hope that you got a lot of takeaways. You had an opportunity to share your views and to also give us some kind of input on the way forward. We look forward to you helping us to organize a 2025 IGF, and so I won’t go on much longer so we could hear from you. Thank you.

Chengetai Masango: Thank you very much, Carol. And please, Olli.

Ole-Martin Martisen: Thank you. Hello. Well, thank you, everybody. I want to thank the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia for hosting this year’s IGF. The organization and the hospitality here have been truly exceptional, and we’re grateful for that. And I also want to thank everyone here for being here. It’s not much time until the next IGF, and we need every one of you to participate and help us in arranging that. And we are here to listen now. And Norway has a strong commitment to ensure that the 20th IGF also will become a success as this one has been, so thank you.

Chengetai Masango: And I would also like to introduce Vint Cerf, who is the chair of the leadership panel. He’s online and he’s right behind me, yes. And he’ll also be listening from the leadership panel. Vint, would you like to say a few words before we start?

Vint Cerf: Well, that’s very kind of you to let me do that. I realize that the way this is set up, I look like Banquo’s ghost sort of hovering on the stage. I actually have a concrete suggestion to make, if I could make it now, if that’s all right with you.

Chengetai Masango: Go ahead.

Vint Cerf: This is specifically with regard to the operation of the IGF here in Saudi. First, huge thanks to our Saudi hosts for putting this together. This is by no means an easy process, and I know our Norwegian hosts must be increasingly aware of that. I do want to suggest two specific things that we might do. First of all, we should have a post-meeting analysis of the audio problems that have popped up from time to time. Facing online and in-person audio and translation, captioning, and signing services is really hard. Any insights that the Saudi team can provide would be helpful to our Norwegian colleagues, so I would recommend a kind of a post-meeting analysis. The second thing is that I believe an accommodation expert team should visit the Norwegian site as early as possible in the planning in order to assure that support for people who need accommodation is taken into consideration. It was even suggested that people with bona fide accommodation needs might even have a different colored badge so that we know that they might require additional assistance. So those are two just very concrete things that might be considered. Thank you.

Chengetai Masango: Thank you very much, Vince. So let us start, and could you please, when you make an intervention, please just say your name quickly for the audience. I would like to invite you to come up and talk about your role in the IGF, your role in the IGF, your position for the record and your stakeholder group. Unfortunately, my eyesight is not that great, so will the first one please come up? And two minutes, and the clock starts as soon as you start speaking.

Chad IGF: Good afternoon, my name is Dr. Huseyfi, I coordinate the IGF. Yesterday was the international Arabic language day, so kindly allow me to share my closing remarks in Arabic. I say that was Sada. Ladies and gentlemen, today we convene at IGF, hosted by Saudi Arabia, in 2020-2021. I seize this opportunity to underscore that this forum should serve as a platform to resolve any issue, and for the governance of the youth, we need integration of AI and Internet of Things and technology to ensure our connectivity to the world. We also need to promote the development of the Internet of Things and technology in a sustainable manner, and to promote the economic growth and sustainable development. However, we, this forum faces a lot of challenges related to the conflict of interests between the U.N. agencies regarding the new look the U.N., and to mobilize efforts to promote IGF. So we should have this forum to be a permanent forum. and to have a budget and financial resources to ensure the sustainability of such efforts. We should work together to ensure that this forum will be an effective tool for development and peace. Thank you.

Chengetai Masango: Thank you very much. Can we have the next speaker please?

Audience: Peace be upon you all. It’s great to be here at the IJF 2024 in Riyadh. I had the pleasure to attend the last version in Japan and I’m happy to be part of it. Allow me to speak in Arabic. At the outset, I would like to express my deep thanks and appreciation to you and the leadership for the sound organization of IJF for 2020. This forum is a strategic platform to unify efforts and sharing experience and expertise and enhance international cooperation in digital challenges, bringing experts and decision-making can contribute to road mapping for sustainable digital worlds in the framework of the computing. We cannot ignore the computing technology in enhancing the services to our citizens and to provide innovative solutions to face the challenges. Computing technologies is instrumental in enhancing the responsiveness of governments to meet the needs of the society, especially at the time of crisis, health and the natural crisis. However, depending on the computing… ways, a lot of opportunities that the development countries can leverage to enhance its digital capabilities, including reducing the cost and enhancing the capabilities.

Chengetai Masango: One microphone. So I do see people lining up for the other one, which we are not using. So will the first one, please. You can move over to the next one. Yes. But the first person who’s there, please just walk over to the other microphone, please. Or let’s say, for now, why don’t the people in the front there, in that line, can you please just make another line there, and then we can go one by one, back and forth. Those few people who are there now. Thank you. It’s really a pleasure to be here in IGF 2024, and I would like just to highlight a really

Audience: important subject, which was in a… of the subject in Riyadh declaration that has been announced recently in the beginning ceremony. And it was about the digital idea. And allow me just to speak in Arabic in this subject. So today, establishing reliable digital identity, which can be operationalized, it’s very important for equitable access for economic development in the light of the digital economy. And the heavy relay on the methodology anchored on digital technologies, the digital identities internationally recognized a must for individuals and businesses and governments for the inclusivity of the economy. And to response to such challenges, the international community should focus on such pressing issues. And today, it’s not a secret designing international digital identity is of paramount importance for the benefits that can be generated in closing the gaps for the inequality and to enriching or the access to resources. Access identity ensure… Distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen, my name is Daa. Bluey, and it is an absolute honor to stand before you today as the host country Youth Track representative. I would like to start by saying that we have had an incredible time over the past week. This week showcased the immense efforts that all Youth Track representatives have put over the past few months. And I’m lucky to say that our participation across the IGF sessions has been nothing short of incredible. Our host country colleagues at the Digital Government Authority have worked relentlessly day and night to ensure that our encouragement and support is in place. It has also allowed us to shed some light on Saudi Arabia’s trajectory in the digital space. And I can only hope that in Norway next year, the Youth Track continues to receive the compelling level of support that it has, ensuring that youth have the opportunity to participate in high-level and parliamentary track sessions to truly embody our objective of building our multi-stakeholder future.

Chengetai Masango: Thank you so much. Thank you. Next. We can actually just do it automatically. Thank you. Okay.

Audience: Hello, everyone. I am Rui Ferreira, and I’m here with the Brazilian Youth Delegation from the CGI. I also research, focusing on protecting children and young people online. And it’s my first time at the IGF, so I just want to say that I’m very happy to be here. All the Brazilian delegation I have to participate in this year’s IGF, and to the Saudi Q3, and to attend the sessions related to my research topic. So thank you to the IGF organizers and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia for this incredible opportunity. And if I can say anything… the youths are not the future, we are the present and we are building a beautiful internet for everyone. So thank you. Hello my name is John Moreno, I’m here as the vice chair of the youth standing group. I would like to first start thanking the host country for his hospitality and so I have a couple of things here. I believe the visa issues that we had last year were almost all solved, even though for some people it arrived dangerously close to the date of the event, so they almost didn’t manage it to get here, but it was a great improvement. I also recognize that the dynamic coalitions didn’t have much space to present their year-long discussions and outcomes, so we had several sessions intended to present outcomes that were not accepted and I believe this takes a huge and important well an important part of the event. Putting the workshops around the village was a great idea, we really could integrate them to the event that didn’t happen in past events. We need to find a way to unify the queue for online and on-site participants because it’s difficult to manage both ends while you’re organizing your session and yeah that’s it, thank you. Thank you very much

Chengetai Masango: for those insights, we will keep them in touch. After this speaker we’ll also have an online speaker, Nena, but please go ahead.

Audience: Hi everyone. l, this is my first IGF, you for the opportunity, but I wish the countries, there should be, like where all countries should be able to to have a stable flow of the growth in technology, so that some countries, like especially some countries in Africa, are not completely behind, while others are going ahead too fast. Thank you.

Chengetai Masango: Thank you very much. Nnena?

Online audience: Thank you very much, Shengetai. Hello, everyone. I have five points. I want to start with the first one. The first point is that we need to put more emphasis, more engagement, and more financing into the Internet Governance Schools. Because they bring us the most holistic and the most open and engaging stakeholders. The second is that for the sustainability of the IGF, we really need to engage more with the non-government stakeholders. So, we need to engage more with the non-government stakeholders, and we need to engage more with the international and regional initiatives. I believe these give us the best opportunity for sustainability in the Internet governance system. I want to congratulate Saudi Arabia for hosting us, and for kicking off the international IGF, but I would like to acknowledge Saudi Arabia as one of the main contributors for IGF. Just so we understand, the IGF has raised the audio issues. I would like to recognize those expansion and you raised those issues for the future. Because I want to recognize those expansion and you raised those I’d also like to join my voice to say that the visa processes were very fast, and I want to thank you all for it. We will be back in exactly 10 years in Saudi Arabia to join the FIFA World Cup. Thank you very much. My name is Nenna. I come from the internet. I have done 15 sessions online, and it’s been wonderful.

Chengetai Masango: Next slide, please.

Audience: Well hello, everyone. My name is Itzel from Mexico. I’m a fellow from the Dynamic Coalition of Accessibility and Disability. It was a great opportunity for me to be here, and I want to invite you and make a suggestion to involve people with disabilities and our organizations on the planning of the IFG in order to ensure that all necessities are covered, comply with the accessibility guidelines, and leave no one behind. Thank you. First of all, I would like to congratulate Saudi Arabia for organizing this amazing event. I’m so happy to share that for the first time we were having a session on judges on human rights, and one of the judges from the High Court, Tanzania, was present. So this is something very happy for me, being from the legal side, and I’m hopeful that the next year we might be having some other judges from the other part of the globe. So because judiciary is one of the important parts of the society, and I believe that technology can help. them to give a speedy justice. Along with that, I would like to raise my concern regarding the young voices. Although this year Pakistan was having a lot of participants, but still some of my friends, young guys, didn’t make it to the IGF because of the visa issues. So I believe that for the next IGF, the IGF secretariat would really work hard because for a country like us, especially from Asia, there will be a lot of issues in terms of the visa for Norway. So I believe that the young guys will be here, will be participating. I hope we do not have visa issues for the next year. Thank you. Good morning, good afternoon, and good evening. My name is Ghayr Bawari. I am from Afghanistan and I live in Kabul, Afghanistan. I volunteer as the coordinator of Afghanistan IGF and its affiliate initiatives like the Youth IGF Afghanistan, the Afghanistan Network Operators Group, and as well as Afghanistan School of Internet Governance. I’m so happy to be here, not alone, but I have Afghan delegates with me as well. As in IGF 2022 in Addis Ababa, I was the only Afghan in the whole IGF event, and I was kind of feeling very alone, but I’m happy this year I have a few Afghans and Afghan delegates with me. Thank you very much. And today I’m here to, I would like to take this opportunity to extend my heartfelt gratitude to several key supporters. who have made our presence at the IJF 2024 possible. First and foremost, a special thank you to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia for graciously granting us visas. Your support has been instrumental in enabling our participation here. Thank you. I would like also to express our sincere appreciation to the APNIC Foundation for their gracious sponsorship of Afghan delegates. Your commitment to fostering inclusion and representation is truly commendable. And thank you for your strengthening Afghan community through your Digital Leap Project. When most of the international organizations turned their back to Afghan people after the political changes, you were the one who stepped in and supported them. Thank you. I want to first thank the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia for hosting this year’s convening of the UNIJF. Having been coming here for the last several years on a quarterly basis, I’ve seen the tremendous transformation going on in the Kingdom and wish that more of the world can see just how committed, how invested, and how impactful this new era for Saudi Arabia is and will be for the world. I’d like to thank the IJF Secretariat, the leaders here on the floor, the organizers, and most importantly, the staff who cleaned the bathrooms, cooked the food, and served us across this past week. These folks are often underappreciated, often unrecognized, and often unthanked. So I would be remiss if we didn’t take a moment here to thank them. My name is Yusuf Abdel-Qadir. I’m from Syracuse University, and I’m a part of a joint initiative between Syracuse and the Africa Open Data Internet Research Foundation wherein we created an organization called the Africa Community Internet Program. I won’t talk about us. You can find out about us at AGCIP. My intervention here today is focused on how might the Norwegian IGF build off the momentum of this convening. The multi-stakeholder framework that IGF is rooted in is more important now than ever. Efforts at fragmenting the internet present challenges to empowering and advancing access to the 2.5 billion that lack internet. And while IGF is rooted in multi-stakeholder engagements across private sector, the public sector and civil society, more formal avenues for accelerating access to internet connectivity for sustainable development and ensuring that innovation and creativity, language and cultural preservation and history and the visions of those often overlooked are more fully needed now to be integrated in our development of emerging technologies, particularly as we see what’s happening with the development and advancement of artificial intelligence. By this, I specifically mean that we need to move beyond a more multi-stakeholder, voluntary engagement to more concerted effort at identifying …

Chengetai Masango: Sorry. Thank you very much. And I heard you came from a great university, so thanks. Next we have online Thomas Olsen-Ahem.

Audience: First of all, I would like to say to welcome everyone here in Saudi Arabia. I hope you enjoyed your time at staying in Riyadh. So my name … My name is Athina Rachevi. I’m a computer engineer and hold a master’s degree in cybersecurity. So I’m so glad to host this great internet governance forum and this great event to knowledge transfer and to share our idea and our thoughts and focus on our future, digital future, which addressing many, many various topics such as AI governance, data governance, cybersecurity regulations. and how to put the regulating and unify our efforts to increase the efficiency in technology usage and ethical usage. So let me please use the other minutes to speak in Arabic. So I was honored that the Kingdom has hosted the IGF for 2024. And I would like to address the most prominent topics discussed here on the forum, which is the AI governance, which is the topic of the hour. I would like also to focus, say that we must have concerted efforts on having regulations, policies and processes for the use policies on two main themes. The first of which is the ethical consideration and the ethical aspect of AI. And the second is how do we how do you prevent biases and algorithms of AI and the issues that are that were where misuse take place. Generally speaking, we would like to have concerted efforts for the IGF to come. Thank you.

Chengetai Masango: Let’s just hear one person from online. Thomas Olsen, IHEM, if I’m saying your name correctly, please. Let’s get the next person.

Nepal Youth IGF: Hello, everyone. My name is Ananda Gautam. I’m from Nepal. I represent Youth IGF Nepal, Internet Society Youth Standing Group and Youth Coalition on Internet Governance here. So I’m very proud to be here. And I’m I’m raising the issues of young people who couldn’t be here. I’m sorry for the young people and teen guys who were working so hard to be here, but due to constraints, they couldn’t be here. I came here on my own expenses, but Riyadh was very expensive for me. I’m sorry. I’m thankful to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia for the visa issues. It was very swift for me. So we are working very collaboratively to enhance the IGF ecosystem with 170 NRIs. But when we go back to our communities, even the UN agencies don’t recognize what IGF is. I think we need a serious kind of collaboration so that they know the essence of IGF. When we go back to the community, it is about not only about the NRIs, but I think it is a broader collaboration that will enhance our impact. Another thing is many youth coordinators are putting their hands and hands to bring the Global Youth Summit, and this year we have started a youth mentorship program, which I am very thankful for. But to bring them here, I think we need a very broad collaboration so that it is not always equal that when people participate online and be on site, because they will be missing so many things that we have when we participate on site. So I would request for a broader collaboration that could bring the people who are really contributing to these processes, without whom the essence of IGF would be lost. So thank you for the young people who have made it out to here and have collaborated on a lot of sessions. And looking forward for the Norway IGF, I hope visa issues…

Audience: Thank you. Good afternoon. It’s truly a great pleasure to be here at the IGF Riyadh Forum, surrounded by such an esteemed group. of leaders, innovators, and collaborators. I have a few suggestions for the next iteration of the IGF forum. So as we look ahead to the future of technology, particularly with the rapid advancements in AI, automation, and data sciences, it’s clear that these technologies hold significant potential to revolutionize industries and improve efficiencies. It is crucial for the future IGF sessions to explore how they can be developed, implemented, and regulated to ensure they deliver their benefits responsibly and effectively across all borders. Another key area for future discussions, as well, is how we can ensure that emerging technologies, particularly in AI, are designed and implemented to achieve the best possible outcomes. As AI systems become more widely adopted across industries, such as healthcare, transportation, finance, how can we ensure that they are integrated in ways that maximize the positive impact while minimizing unintended consequences? What strategies can be employed to ensure these systems are robust, reliable, and aligned with broader and economic goals? Also, additionally, as data plays an essential role in driving technological progress, future IGF sessions should consider how data privacy, security, and integrity can be safeguarded in this rapidly evolving landscape. Also, as the development of emerging technologies across national borders, international cooperation and regulatory frameworks will be increasingly vital. Moving forward, how can countries, corporations, and international organizations collaborate to establish consistent standards and regulations that govern these technologies? Finally, as we continue to push the boundaries of technological progress, it will be important to strike a balance…

Chengetai Masango: Yes, sorry, it cuts off at two minutes. Next please.

Audience: Hello, everyone. As a Saudi, please allow me to start by warmly welcoming all attendees from different countries around the world. Allow me, please, to share my feedback and input in Arabic. It was IGF. It was a valuable opportunity to understand the challenges and the benefits of using the Internet. One of the key experience for me is the international experience which have been shared at the sessions and workshops. This was for me a golden chance for me to be equipped and familiar with the best practices and to understand the trends. What I have noticed, the key challenges revolving around the cyber security and the privacy protection and the keenness to have a digital infrastructure despite the disparity among countries in this regard. What I have concluded and the ways of such experiences, the importance of focusing on the beneficiaries, children, women, and to build and to have people-centered approach and to enhance the multi-stakeholder approach for the future. I hope the discussion will include emerging technologies which can be leveraged to provide optimal services and how can the organization build the foundations for safe benefits.

Chengetai Masango: So I’m going to turn it over to Jordan Carter, who is going to give you a brief overview of what we’re seeing in the region from such technologies. Thank you.

Jordan Carter: Good afternoon, my name is Jordan Carter, I’m a technical community participant, outgoing MAG member, and here from the Australian Domain Administration. On the logistics, first of all, thank you to the Kingdom of Australia for allowing me to be a part of this event. I’d like to start by saying, as I said in the past, please have your Zoom crews practice this hybrid thing. The Zoom experience has gotten better as the week has gone on. Practice more in advance, please, so it’s smoother from the beginning. That would be really good. One observation, I want to note the broad support for the Internet Governance Forum and its continuance, as the world’s premier Internet Governance and Digital Policy Forum, as many of you know, is the world’s largest Internet Governance and Digital Policy Forum, the IGF. Not just for principled reasons, but for practical ones. The collaboration and sharing of ideas at the IGF is the best way to make Internet Governance and Digital Policy as workable, as inclusive, as supportive of human rights, human development, and human potential as it can be. There’s broad support for extension from countries, the central to Canada, for an existing regulations, currently being expanded to a new setup and made available in a new spirit of policy, but it’s a cliff, so in 2025, let’s renew the mandate. Let’s make it permanent. Thank you.

Audience: the Digital Opportunities Foundation based in Germany. I would like to share three thoughts with you. First, last Tuesday was like a dream come true. We’ve discussed child rights here at the main stage in a high-level session in the plenary hall. It was a really great experience and we’ve come a long way to reach this and I hope that it was not a once-in-a-lifetime moment. Second, as a member of DC, it first felt like a duty when we were asked to merge our proposals to create joint workshops. While doing so, it becomes a pleasure and joy. It was meaningful and it has a lot of sense. Thanks for Martin Botterman from DCIOT and Jutta Kroll from DCCRITE for support and contribution. Third, I would like to thank the United Nations and Saudi Arabia for hosting this IGF here. It was incredible and a special thanks I would like to direct to all the population and inhabitants of Riyadh. Everyone we’ve met in the last days was so kind, so friendly, so open-minded, so polite. It was a pleasure to meet you, to be here, and thanks everyone. Dear all, thank you for having me. This is Jasmine Imanko from Hong Kong. I am very excited to be, this is my second IGF and despite of a lot of privilege and gratitude to the host and everything that is happening here, I want to share a little bit of my personal disappointment. One thing that I observe is it’s my second IGF but I already seen that we are missing something in this IGF. So one thing is the music night. I’m talking about this because it is a shared tradition, the tradition that IGF has been having for years and we are missing this tradition. You know, social, official social occasion is not just things for fun, but it’s also creating more scenario and platform for people to meet and have dialogues besides just the formal session we are having now and the others. It’s a very important occasion people treasure and it’s an important platform that we exchange our culture and celebrate our diversity in other means. So I hope that in next year we could have this in Norway and my worries come because even as a small tradition like this is missing here, I really hope that and I really emphasize that we are able to keep the entire IGF as a whole. So from small thing that we keep and then to extending to the whole IGF mandate that we are able to renew, it’s very critical and I really appreciate the effort of people here, the different stakeholders and everyone, thank you very much. Thank you. Good afternoon, it’s our privilege to address you. My name is Jocelyn Melissa from the Association for Progressive Communication, and these are our insights when it comes to the reflections for this year’s IGF. Clear messages. have emerged from the multiple sessions and discussions in Riyadh during the IGF is that the Global Digital Compact must be integrated into the next phase of the WSIS, and that the IGF has to continue and to be strengthened. The burden on countries from the global south to comply with and support global processes is already immense. Increasing it through duplication of efforts might serve the interests of international digital bureaucrats, but it might not help to bridge the digital, social, and economic divides. In relation to the IGF, it is essential that, in our view, to grant the IGF a long-term or permanent mandate and strengthen its institutional capacity, build on its achievement, and continue its evolution to respond to the multiple imperatives of the current, emerging, and future digital societies. The IGF evolution needs to be shaped by a strategic vision rather than by ad hoc partnerships or initiatives to establish new tracks or themes. These are valuable, but unless the IGF has the institutional capacity to interact effectively and consistently with governments and key institutions from non-state actors, expanding its range will dilute its impact. This includes

Chengetai Masango: And sorry, just to note. If you don’t finish your intervention and if there isn’t enough time to go through it. through everybody’s intervention, please send them to the IGF Secretariat and we’ll take note of them. So you can just email IGF at un.org. Thank you.

Audience: Hello, everyone. I am from the Minister of Finance and Economy from Benin. I would like to actually benefit from this opportunity to thank you all, to thank the International Organization for ensuring access to Internet. It should be affordable and accessible to developing countries. During this IGF, two important points actually, I saw one, positive one, negative one. The access to this country was very easy thanks to the visa issuing and the visa also should be available to everyone. The negative point is that I was not able to share my number. I invite, sorry, our personal information should not be collected. I called the hosting country next year not to collect our personal information. Thank you.

ICANN: Good afternoon. Adam Peake from the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, ICANN. On behalf of the ICANN, I would like to thank the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia as our host for this week. Thank you, Minister of Communications and Information Technology, Excellency Abdullah Amir Azwar and your team and all who have made the 19th IGF such an exceptional success. ICANN will continue our support for the IGF, continue our participant and absolute support for the multi-stakeholder approach for Internet governance. Thank you so much to you. to you, your team, who are skillful, dedicated and extremely supportive and patient, thank you. To the MAG, Carol, thank you. Without you, there’s no program and many of the excellent sessions we’ve enjoyed this week. Thank you for all of your work throughout the year. Thank you to the Kingdom of Norway. Thank you for – we’re looking forward to visiting you in – well, it’s only June, and as someone who lives in Northern Europe, midsummer seems a very long way away. It is not. It is about six months, and we have much work to do. Thank you, and look forward to seeing you in about six months’ time. Safe travels home. Thank you.

Audience: Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Dr. Andrews Bass. I’m the Executive Director for Institute of Public Policy and Diplomacy Research and also the hub for the IGF in the Dominican Republic. IGF is one of the best multilateral forums out there, and I feel like we have missed a presentation, especially the one from South America and Latin America. The CSW, we are a led company. They want me to address some questions. They say they want the visa approval and the letter of approval to be faster, like the CSW, within 48 hours, they have the letters. The reason why, because some countries take up to six months for them to have an appointment. That will help them to come faster, and also, when you got the letter close to the date, the ticket becomes twice as expensive. Also, they want the regional representative to do a better job to reach the universities. I’m in the US. If you talk a lot of universities, one or two understand about IGF. IGF is inside the UN. A lot of people inside the UN don’t even know about IGF. The youth also want to have more representation on the planning. They say when they plan, if they have the future of tomorrow, they don’t want to hear about that. They want to know the future of tomorrow is today. And I’m giving IGF accountability for the one IGF I was in Germany, we say one planet, one Internet, or one people. For us to be one planet, one Internet, we have to be inclusivity. That means all of us have to be here. And thank you for the surpassing marvelous Saudi Arabia for their hospitality. Everything was like that. And thank you so much.

Chengetai Masango: Thank you. I’m sorry. I have to call the last speaker. So you’re the last speaker. And then we have to prepare for the closing session because there’s a schedule they have to keep in this venue as well. And also people have planes, et cetera, to catch. Thank you.

Audience: Thank you for the opportunity. Good evening, everyone. First, I would like to extend my heartfelt gratitude to the organizer of this very insightful forum. Everyone’s dedication and effort has made this gathering truly impactful. It’s an honor to stand here in this open mic session today. This moment represents a power of connection and collaboration across borders with all. In a world that grows more interconnected every day, it’s inspiring to share ideas and perspective that contributes to building a better, more inclusive future for all. As we gather here in the final day of IGF 2024, I would like to propose that we take a significant step forward by developing a clear and unified strategy of the IGF to maximize our collective impact by establishing a shared vision and well-defined objectives that address the dynamic challenges and opportunities. So, thank you very much for your attention, and I look forward to the IGF 2025. Thank you very much, and now, to end the session, and thank you very much for all your interventions, we have taken good notes, and I can attest for both the Chair and the Co-Chair, they have taken good notes, and we will continue to do so. So, thank you very much, and I look forward to the IGF 2025.

Chengetai Masango: Thank you very much, and I look forward to the IGF 2025. Thank you very much, and I look forward to the IGF 2025. Thank you very much, and we will continue to take good notes. And we will also be launching a taking stock, so you will be able to send us your comments, and we’ll compile them into a report, and that will be given to next year’s MAG to look at as well, so that they keep in mind your thoughts and your ideas. So, thank you very much, and I look forward to the IGF 2025.

Carol Roach: Thank you very much. And now, I would like to invite the Chair and the Co-Chair to say a few quick words. Well, I actually want you to do something. I want everybody to stand and just give yourselves and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia a rousing hand applause. Thank you very much.

Chengetai Masango: Thank you very much, and I look forward to the next year’s MAG. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. And our final, I’ll ask our Co-Chair for next year, if you

Ole-Martin Martisen: have to say a few quick words. I noted judging by the applause, the most important are visas and music night, so we’ll take that with us. Thank you.

Agreement Points

Improve IGF organization and logistics

Audience

Vint Cerf

Jordan Carter

Audio and technical issues should be addressed

Practice hybrid format in advance

Visa process improvements needed

Multiple speakers emphasized the need to improve various aspects of IGF organization, including addressing technical issues, practicing hybrid formats, and streamlining visa processes.

Enhance inclusivity and representation

Audience

Nepal Youth IGF

Involve people with disabilities in IGF planning

Increase youth participation and representation

Improve regional representation, especially from Latin America

Ensure participation from developing countries

Several speakers stressed the importance of improving inclusivity and representation at IGF, particularly for people with disabilities, youth, developing countries, and underrepresented regions.

Focus on emerging technologies and their impacts

Audience

Focus on AI governance and ethics

Address cybersecurity and privacy protection

Discuss emerging technologies and their impacts

Multiple speakers highlighted the need to address emerging technologies, particularly AI, cybersecurity, and privacy issues in future IGF discussions.

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized the importance of strengthening the IGF’s role and expanding its engagement with various stakeholders and initiatives.

Jordan Carter

Online audience

Support for extending and strengthening IGF mandate

More engagement with non-government stakeholders needed

Enhance collaboration with international initiatives

Both speakers highlighted the need to improve IGF’s outreach and recognition, particularly in underrepresented regions and within the UN system.

Audience

Nepal Youth IGF

Improve regional representation, especially from Latin America

Improve recognition of IGF among UN agencies

Unexpected Consensus

Importance of social events at IGF

Audience

Visa process improvements needed

While discussing logistical improvements, there was an unexpected emphasis on the importance of social events like the ‘music night’ at IGF, highlighting the value placed on informal networking opportunities.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The main areas of agreement centered around improving IGF organization and logistics, enhancing inclusivity and representation, focusing on emerging technologies, and strengthening the IGF’s mandate and outreach.

Consensus level

There was a moderate to high level of consensus among speakers on these key issues. This suggests a shared vision for improving and expanding the IGF’s impact, which could lead to more focused efforts in addressing these areas in future events.

Different Viewpoints

Approach to improving IGF participation

Audience

Nepal Youth IGF

Visa process improvements needed

Improve recognition of IGF among UN agencies

While both speakers aim to improve IGF participation, they focus on different aspects. One emphasizes streamlining the visa process, while the other suggests improving recognition of IGF among UN agencies.

Unexpected Differences

Focus on social aspects vs. technical improvements

Audience

Vint Cerf

Jordan Carter

Ensure participation from developing countries

Audio and technical issues should be addressed

Practice hybrid format in advance

While most speakers focused on technical improvements or representation issues, one audience member unexpectedly emphasized the need to ensure participation from developing countries, highlighting a potential gap in priorities.

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement revolve around prioritizing technical improvements, enhancing participation and representation, and focusing on specific policy areas for future IGFs.

difference_level

The level of disagreement among speakers appears to be moderate. While there are differing opinions on how to improve the IGF, most speakers share the common goal of enhancing the forum’s effectiveness and inclusivity. These differences in approach could lead to productive discussions on how to best evolve the IGF, but may also result in challenges in determining which improvements to prioritize.

Partial Agreements

Both speakers agree on the need to improve technical aspects of the IGF, but they suggest different approaches. Vint Cerf proposes a post-meeting analysis, while Jordan Carter recommends more practice before the event.

Vint Cerf

Jordan Carter

Audio and technical issues should be addressed

Practice hybrid format in advance

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized the importance of strengthening the IGF’s role and expanding its engagement with various stakeholders and initiatives.

Jordan Carter

Online audience

Support for extending and strengthening IGF mandate

More engagement with non-government stakeholders needed

Enhance collaboration with international initiatives

Both speakers highlighted the need to improve IGF’s outreach and recognition, particularly in underrepresented regions and within the UN system.

Audience

Nepal Youth IGF

Improve regional representation, especially from Latin America

Improve recognition of IGF among UN agencies

Key Takeaways

Resolutions and Action Items

Unresolved Issues

Suggested Compromises

I believe an accommodation expert team should visit the Norwegian site as early as possible in the planning in order to assure that support for people who need accommodation is taken into consideration. It was even suggested that people with bona fide accommodation needs might even have a different colored badge so that we know that they might require additional assistance.

speaker

Vint Cerf

reason

This comment highlights the importance of accessibility and inclusion at future IGF events, introducing a concrete suggestion for improvement.

impact

It set the tone for subsequent comments about accessibility and inclusion, prompting others to consider these issues throughout the discussion.

We need to find a way to unify the queue for online and on-site participants because it’s difficult to manage both ends while you’re organizing your session

speaker

Joao Moreno

reason

This comment addresses a practical challenge in hybrid events and suggests a need for improvement in managing online and in-person participation.

impact

It sparked further discussion about the logistics and challenges of hybrid events, with subsequent speakers touching on online participation issues.

I would like to invite you and make a suggestion to involve people with disabilities and our organizations on the planning of the IFG in order to ensure that all necessities are covered, comply with the accessibility guidelines, and leave no one behind.

speaker

Itzel from Mexico

reason

This comment directly addresses the need for inclusivity in the planning process, not just in accommodation during the event.

impact

It reinforced the earlier point about accessibility and expanded the conversation to include the planning stages of the IGF.

When we go back to our communities, even the UN agencies don’t recognize what IGF is. I think we need a serious kind of collaboration so that they know the essence of IGF.

speaker

Ananda Gautam

reason

This comment highlights a significant challenge in the broader recognition and impact of the IGF, even within the UN system.

impact

It shifted the discussion towards the need for better communication and collaboration to increase the IGF’s visibility and effectiveness.

Clear messages have emerged from the multiple sessions and discussions in Riyadh during the IGF is that the Global Digital Compact must be integrated into the next phase of the WSIS, and that the IGF has to continue and to be strengthened.

speaker

Josephine Miliza

reason

This comment synthesizes key outcomes from the IGF and connects them to broader global initiatives.

impact

It provided a higher-level perspective on the IGF’s role and future, influencing subsequent comments about the IGF’s mandate and evolution.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by highlighting critical areas for improvement in the IGF, including accessibility, hybrid event management, inclusivity in planning, broader recognition of the IGF’s importance, and the need for a clear strategy and mandate. The discussion evolved from specific logistical concerns to broader strategic considerations about the IGF’s future and its role in global internet governance. This progression demonstrated the interconnectedness of practical improvements and long-term vision in enhancing the IGF’s effectiveness and impact.

How can we improve audio issues and hybrid participation for future IGFs?

speaker

Vint Cerf

explanation

Audio problems were noted during the event, and improving hybrid participation is crucial for inclusivity

How can we better accommodate participants with disabilities at future IGFs?

speaker

Vint Cerf

explanation

Ensuring accessibility for all participants is important for an inclusive event

How can we enhance the integration of AI and Internet of Things technologies in a sustainable manner?

speaker

Chad IGF representative

explanation

This is crucial for promoting economic growth and sustainable development

How can we resolve conflicts of interest between UN agencies regarding the future of the IGF?

speaker

Chad IGF representative

explanation

Resolving these conflicts is necessary for the sustainability and effectiveness of the IGF

How can we increase financing and engagement for Internet Governance Schools?

speaker

Nnena

explanation

These schools bring holistic and engaging stakeholders to the IGF ecosystem

How can we better engage non-government stakeholders and international/regional initiatives for IGF sustainability?

speaker

Nnena

explanation

This engagement is crucial for the long-term sustainability of the Internet governance system

How can we improve visa processes for participants, especially youth and those from developing countries?

speaker

Multiple participants

explanation

Visa issues were a recurring concern, impacting participation from various regions

How can we ensure ethical considerations and prevent biases in AI algorithms?

speaker

Audience member

explanation

This is crucial for responsible development and use of AI technologies

How can we improve recognition of IGF’s importance among UN agencies and in local communities?

speaker

Ananda Gautam

explanation

Better recognition could enhance the impact and relevance of IGF’s work

How can we develop, implement, and regulate emerging technologies like AI responsibly across borders?

speaker

Unnamed participant

explanation

This is important for maximizing benefits while minimizing unintended consequences

How can we safeguard data privacy, security, and integrity in the rapidly evolving technological landscape?

speaker

Unnamed participant

explanation

This is crucial as data plays an essential role in driving technological progress

How can we establish consistent international standards and regulations for emerging technologies?

speaker

Unnamed participant

explanation

International cooperation is vital as technologies develop across national borders

How can we renew and potentially make permanent the IGF mandate?

speaker

Jordan Carter

explanation

There is broad support for the continuation and strengthening of the IGF

How can we develop a clear and unified strategy for the IGF to maximize collective impact?

speaker

Unnamed final speaker

explanation

A shared vision and well-defined objectives are needed to address dynamic challenges and opportunities