Uncategorized

Summary

This discussion was a briefing session about the International Telecommunication Union’s (ITU) Council Working Group on Internet and its work on international internet-related public policy issues. The session was led by Sadhvi Saran from ITU, with presentations from the working group’s chair, Wojciech Berezowski from Poland’s Ministry of Digital Affairs, and vice chair Dr. Xiao Zhang. The working group was established in 2010 following an ITU Plenipotentiary Conference decision to create a unique platform for studying and developing international public policy issues related to the internet.

According to Council Resolution 1305, the group’s work spans critical topics including multilingualization of the internet, management of internet resources, and ensuring security, safety, continuity, sustainability, and robustness of the internet. The working group regularly organizes public consultations open to all stakeholders, including governments, private sector, academia, civil society, and individuals, having conducted ten such consultations to date. The current consultation focuses on ensuring meaningful connectivity to the internet for landlocked developing countries (LLDCs), examining strategies, unique challenges, and the role of various stakeholders in addressing connectivity issues.

During the Q&A session, questions were raised about upcoming Geneva meetings and the differences between ITU’s work and ICANN’s activities. The speakers clarified that while ICANN focuses specifically on domain name system coordination, ITU’s work covers broader internet policy issues and operates through a membership-based structure with multi-stakeholder consultations. The session concluded with invitations for participants to contribute to ongoing consultations and attend future meetings, emphasizing the collaborative nature of the working group’s approach to internet governance.

Keypoints

**Major Discussion Points:**

– **ITU Council Working Group on Internet Introduction**: The session introduced the ITU’s member state working group focused on international internet-related public policy issues, with presentations from the chair (Mr. Berezovsky from Poland’s Ministry of Digital Affairs) and vice chair (Dr. Zhang)

– **Scope of Work and Mandate**: The working group operates under Council Resolution 1305 and addresses critical topics including multilingualization of the internet, management of internet resources, security/safety/continuity of the internet, and development aspects to ensure an inclusive and accessible global resource

– **Public Consultation Process**: The group regularly organizes open consultations (10 to date) involving all stakeholders – governments, private sector, academia, civil society, and technical community – with the current consultation focusing on ensuring meaningful connectivity for Landlocked Developing Countries (LLDCs)

– **Relationship with Other Organizations**: Discussion of how ITU’s work differs from and complements organizations like ICANN, with ITU having a broader mandate covering multiple internet policy areas while maintaining active collaboration through various mechanisms

– **Upcoming Events and Participation**: Information about the September 2025 consultation meeting in Geneva, the WSIS Plus 20 high-level event in July, and invitations for stakeholder participation both online and in-person

**Overall Purpose:**

The discussion served as an introductory briefing session at the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) to inform stakeholders about the ITU Council Working Group on Internet’s activities, mandate, and opportunities for multi-stakeholder participation in their public policy work on internet governance issues.

**Overall Tone:**

The tone was consistently professional, welcoming, and informative throughout. The speakers maintained a collaborative and inclusive approach, emphasizing openness to stakeholder participation and input. The atmosphere remained formal but approachable, with the presenters actively encouraging questions and future engagement. There was no significant change in tone during the conversation – it remained consistently positive and invitation-focused from beginning to end.

Speakers

– **Sadhvi Saran**: Strategy advisor on emerging technologies at the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), specializing in international internet-related public policy issues

– **Wojciech Berezowski**: Chair of ITU Council Working Group on Internet, Counselor on cybersecurity affairs with the Ministry of Digital Affairs in Poland

– **Dr. Xiao Zhang**: Vice chair of ITU Council Working Group on Internet, focuses on internet public policy issues

– **Audience**: Includes Professor Xu from the Communication University of China (specific expertise not mentioned for other audience members)

Additional speakers:

– **Professor Xu**: From the Communication University of China (role/title mentioned but specific expertise not detailed)

# Summary: ITU Council Working Group on Internet Briefing Session

## Introduction and Context

This briefing session provided an introductory presentation about the International Telecommunication Union’s (ITU) Council Working Group on Internet and its work on international internet-related public policy issues. The session was conducted at the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and was led by Sadhvi Saran, who works with the ITU as a strategy advisor on emerging technologies. The presentation featured contributions from the working group’s leadership: Wojciech Berezowski, Chair of the ITU Council Working Group on Internet, and Dr. Xiao Zhang, Vice Chair of the working group.

## Organisational Background and Mandate

The ITU Council Working Group on Internet was established in 2010 following a decision at an ITU Plenipotentiary Conference. Dr. Xiao Zhang described it as “a unique platform for studying and developing international public policy issues related to the internet.” The working group operates under Council Resolution 1305 and serves as a member state-based organisation that addresses internet governance issues while maintaining an open consultation format for all stakeholders.

Dr. Xiao Zhang outlined that their work spans “critical topics including multilingualization of the internet, management of internet resources, and ensuring security, safety, continuity, sustainability, and robustness of the internet.” The group also focuses on development aspects to ensure the internet remains “an inclusive, accessible, and resilient global resource.”

## Multi-Stakeholder Engagement and Public Consultation Process

The working group demonstrates commitment to inclusive stakeholder engagement through regular public consultations. Dr. Xiao Zhang explained that the group “regularly organizes public consultations open to all stakeholders including governments, private sector, academia, civil society, technical community, and individuals.” He mentioned that they have organized what he believes to be 10 public consultations to date.

The current consultation focuses on “ensuring meaningful connectivity to the internet for landlocked developing countries (LLDCs),” examining strategies, challenges, and stakeholder roles in addressing connectivity issues. The consultation process includes meetings held in Geneva where “stakeholders who participate in consultations are invited to present contributions at Geneva meetings either in person or online.”

## Relationship with Other Organisations

When asked about differences between ITU and ICANN regarding internet public policy issues, Dr. Xiao Zhang highlighted that “ITU membership is based on multilateral membership structure, which creates unique difference from other organisations.” Sadhvi Saran clarified that “ITU’s work is broader than ICANN’s focus on coordinating domain name systems” while noting that “active collaboration exists with ICANN including mutual participation in meetings and ITU participation in ICANN’s governmental advisory committee.”

The speakers emphasized that these organisational differences support collaboration rather than competition, with both organisations serving complementary roles in the internet governance ecosystem.

## Current Activities and Future Events

The working group is currently conducting a consultation on meaningful connectivity for landlocked developing countries, with contributions being accepted until August 8, 2025. A consultation meeting is planned for Geneva in September 2025, though specific dates had not been finalized at the time of the discussion.

Dr. Zhang mentioned that participants can scan a QR code for more information about contributing to the consultation. Sadhvi Saran also referenced the WSIS Plus 20 high-level event scheduled for the following month, which would be held back-to-back with the AI for Good summit.

## Key Takeaways and Opportunities for Engagement

The ITU Council Working Group on Internet operates as a multilateral platform that combines member state meetings with open multi-stakeholder consultations. The group addresses comprehensive internet governance issues including multilingualization, resource management, security, sustainability, and digital divide challenges.

Stakeholders interested in participating can:

– Contribute to the ongoing LLDC consultation with submissions due by August 8, 2025

– Participate in the September 2025 Geneva consultation meeting (in-person or online)

– Access additional information through the QR code mentioned during the presentation

## Conclusion

This briefing session successfully introduced stakeholders to the ITU Council Working Group on Internet’s mandate, activities, and participation opportunities. The discussion highlighted the group’s commitment to multi-stakeholder engagement and its role in addressing comprehensive internet governance challenges through structured consultation processes. The working group presents an inclusive platform that bridges multilateral approaches with multi-stakeholder engagement principles in international internet policy development.

Sadhvi Saran: Ready? Ready? All right. Good morning, everyone. It’s so nice to see you all here. Thank you for joining. It’s morning and day zero. So we’re very glad you could make it, and also very happy to see a lot of familiar faces here. My name is Sadhvi Saran. I work with the International Telecommunication Union as a strategy advisor on emerging technologies. But today, we’re here on the very specific topic of international internet-related public policy issues. ITU runs a member state working group on this. But to give you a proper welcome and a proper introduction to our work, we have two incredible speakers, the chair of our working group, as well as one of our vice chairs, Dr. Zhang. But we’ll begin with our chair, so Mr. Wojciech Berezovsky, who should be online. He’s a counselor on cybersecurity affairs with the Ministry of Digital Affairs in Poland, and like I said, the chair of our council working group on internet. So if I could please request Mr. Berezovsky.

Wojciech Berezowski: Good morning. It is my pleasure to welcome you to this lightning session of the ITU and Council Working Group on Internet. We are using this opportunity of IGF and meeting with the stakeholders to provide you with more information on our activities. And it would be great to hear your questions after the presentation which will be made by one of the vice chairs, Dr. Zhang. Unfortunately, I was not able to come to Norway to participate in person, but I’m really very, very glad to see you in the room, but also online. And I would like to pass the floor to Dr. Zhang, who will provide you with more information and a very, very good presentation on our activities. Thank you. Enjoy the session.

Sadhvi Saran: Thank you. Thank you so much for joining us. And with that, we now hand over to Dr. Zhang. The floor is yours.

Dr. Xiao Zhang: Thank you. Good morning, everyone. And good morning, our chair. And thank you, Sally. Welcome to this session. And today, we’re going to have a short brief of what we are doing at CWG, Internet of ITU. That is a working group of council of ITU. We are very focused on the internet public policy. So welcome. We have a short introduction, and we are open to Q&A. So let me introduce some of the backgrounds. According to the ITU-PP, the Highest Applying Potential Conference in 2010, they decided to set up a working group on internet. So it has served as a unique platform for internet issues related to identify, study, and develop international public policy issues related to the internet. So you can see in the picture that we have some chairs, vice chairs. I’m so glad that I can join this working group. And normally, we’re working on internet-related issues. And according to our council resolution 1305, which was very clear, that our work spans a range of critical topics. Mostly, we can see linked with internet issues, which are the multilingualization of internet, the management of internet resources, and security, safety, continuity, sustainability, and robustness of internet. And also, we focus on some development aspects of internet. We see that these issues are at the heart of ensuring that internet remains inclusive, accessible, and resilient global resource. I know some of you are working also at ICANN. And we are also working on some public-related issues. And we understand that with the ever-evolving nature of the internet, that we should have more and more stakeholders to be involved in open consultations. So our group regularly organizes some public consultations on various groups. I think we have organized 10 public consultations. So it’s not only because of the complexity nature of these challenges, also because we want to draw all the aspects and experience of all of you, a broad spectrum of all the stakeholders. So the goal of this open consultation is to gather diverse perspectives that can inform and enhance the work of ITU and broader UN system on these critical issues. So our consultation is also open to all the stakeholders, including governments, private sector, academia, civil society, and technical community, and beyond, individuals also. Last year, we had another consultation. And this year, we have, with the previous ongoing public consultation, it focused on the ILDCs, that is, ensuring meaningful connectivity to the internet for landlocked development countries. And the questions we list are as the following. First, what strategies can be adopted to ensure meaningful connectivity to the internet for LLDCs? And second is, what unique challenges do LLDCs face in attaining meaningful connectivity to the internet? And also, it could include the following aspects, like affordability, quality of the bandwidth, and investments, infrastructure, enabling environment, security, and resilience. And also, what can ITU membership, is based on the multilateral. So what can ITU member states, governments, and other stakeholders, including those from transit countries, do to ensure the meaningful connectivity in these LLDCs? So this is our previous public consultation. And the date is till August 8, 2025. So you can just put your contributions, your ideas, thoughts online. And you can also scan this QR code. We have the on-spot and online consultation on September 2025. Data is not available yet, I think. But we will have it later. So you are welcome to give your opinion, both on-site or online. It’s really easy. And you can see, for the previous consultation, we have more than 10 consultations. And we have the archive online. It’s easy to find on our website. You go to the website, and there it is. is there is an archive on the page of CWG Internet. Quite easy. So again, CWG Internet thrives on collaboration dialogue. We understand your input is so valuable. So the open consultations for all of the stakeholders to put your visions and to make inclusive and secure internet for all. So we welcome all of you to join us. Thank you.

Sadhvi Saran: Thank you. Thank you very much, Dr. Zhang. And with that, that’s our brief presentation. And of course, an invitation to all of you to participate in our consultations and then attend the consultation meeting, which happens in Geneva at the end of each cycle to present your inputs and to have a discussion with the member states that form this group. So with that, we open up now for any questions. We still have Mr. Berezovsky online. We have Dr. Zhang here. You have myself. If there’s any questions, any comments, any feedback, we’d love to hear from you before we conclude for today. Going once, going, oh, there’s one.

Audience: Thank you very much for the introduction. I’m Professor Xu from the Communication University of China. A very technical question, what will happen in Geneva, as you have been talking about? There will be an event in Geneva, right? The second question is about the internet public issues. What are the differences, for example, between ITU and IECA in terms of the internet public policy issues? So two questions. One is a technical question about an event. The second is about difference. Thank you.

Sadhvi Saran: I can answer, or I don’t know if Wojciech is still here, if you would like to answer. Is he still online? Wojciech, would you like to answer the questions? And then I can compliment.

Wojciech Berezowski: Thank you. Thank you for the question. Thank you for your interest in the meeting and the event that the ITU will organize in autumn. So as Dr. Jacques mentioned, you are very warmly welcomed to send your input, your written comments, your written opinion to the public consultations that are now available online. The results and the opinions, the inputs will be discussed at the meeting that will be organized in Geneva. And for the open consultations meetings, all the stakeholders that are participating in these open consultations will be invited. So either in person or online, you will be able to present your contribution. You’ll be able to interact with other speakers, other stakeholders participating in this. Yes. For the second question, I would like to kindly ask you to repeat it, as I haven’t heard it exactly.

Sadhvi Saran: The second question was the difference between what the Council Working Group Internet is doing and what ICANN is doing.

Wojciech Berezowski: Speaking on ITU, the Council Working Group is consists of members, which are the administrations. But we have also this format of open consultation meetings and open consultations that are open for all stakeholders that are interested in the topic that was decided by the Council Working Group. So as for the ITU, we have this bi-annually twice a year, we have the Council Working Group meetings. And also, the Council Working Group decides on the public consultations, which are open to all stakeholders.

Dr. Xiao Zhang: I have one word for the sentence. I think ITU membership is very based on the membership. So that’s a very unique difference.

Sadhvi Saran: So just to add some more specifics to that, perhaps, the meeting for this cycle of the consultation will be sometime in September. We don’t have the exact date yet, but it’s likely to be between the 7th to the 14th of September this year. Remote participation is also available. In case you’re not able to physically travel, you can always dial in and be part of the discussions there. And as has already been mentioned, the work that we’re doing here, it comprises of a group of member states with this multi-stakeholder consultation. But we’re working on a range of topics, which includes things like the multilingualization of the internet. We just saw the focus on landlocked developing countries, management of internet resources, the security, continuity, safety, sustainability, robustness of the internet, environmental impacts, the digital divide. So the work is a little bit broader than what ICANN is doing in terms of its work as a nonprofit, focusing on coordinating the domain name systems. But we collaborate very actively. They come to ITU. We go to their meetings. We’re part of the governmental advisory committee, so there’s a lot of collaboration.

Dr. Xiao Zhang: Yeah, I think in 1305, the council resolution, it’s very clear, very clarified how we are doing. And also, there was a long history between ICANN and ITU, so it’s hard.

Sadhvi Saran: OK, any other questions? Any comments? Any feedback? No? All right. OK, with that, we’d like to thank you again so very much for joining us today. Dr. Zhang is here. I’m here. You’ll see us walking around. Feel free to catch us at any point if you have any questions that you’d like to ask personally. But of course, we look forward to seeing all of you over the course of the week, and then hopefully at the ITU. We also have WSIS Plus 20 high-level event that’s happening in July. And it’s from the 7th to the 11th of July, back-to-back with our AI for Good summit. So we also hope to see some of you in Geneva next month. All right. Thank you. See you in Geneva. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. You’re welcome. OK. Thank you.

Agreement points

Multi-stakeholder engagement is essential for internet governance

Speakers

– Dr. Xiao Zhang
– Wojciech Berezowski
– Sadhvi Saran

Arguments

The group regularly organizes public consultations open to all stakeholders including governments, private sector, academia, civil society, technical community, and individuals

The Council Working Group consists of member state administrations but includes open consultation formats for all stakeholders

Invitation extended for stakeholders to participate in consultations and attend Geneva meetings

Summary

All speakers emphasized the importance of inclusive participation from diverse stakeholders in internet governance discussions, with the ITU providing multiple mechanisms for engagement including consultations and meetings

Topics

Legal and regulatory

ITU’s internet governance work has a comprehensive scope covering multiple critical areas

Speakers

– Dr. Xiao Zhang
– Sadhvi Saran

Arguments

Work spans critical topics including multilingualization of internet, management of internet resources, and security, safety, continuity, sustainability, and robustness of internet

Work covers broader topics than ICANN including environmental impacts and digital divide issues

Summary

Both speakers agreed that the ITU’s mandate encompasses a wide range of internet-related issues beyond technical coordination, including security, sustainability, development, and environmental concerns

Topics

Infrastructure | Cybersecurity | Development

Geneva meetings provide structured opportunities for stakeholder input and dialogue

Speakers

– Wojciech Berezowski
– Sadhvi Saran

Arguments

Stakeholders who participate in consultations are invited to present contributions at Geneva meetings either in person or online

Consultation meetings happen in Geneva at end of each cycle for stakeholders to present inputs and discuss with member states

Summary

Both speakers described the Geneva meetings as formal opportunities for stakeholders to present their contributions and engage in dialogue with member states, with both remote and in-person participation options

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized the ITU’s commitment to addressing development challenges and ensuring internet accessibility for underserved populations, particularly focusing on inclusivity and connectivity issues

Speakers

– Dr. Xiao Zhang
– Sadhvi Saran

Arguments

Focus includes development aspects of internet to ensure it remains an inclusive, accessible, and resilient global resource

Current consultation focuses on ensuring meaningful connectivity to internet for landlocked developing countries (LLDCs)

Topics

Development | Infrastructure

Both speakers highlighted the distinctive nature of ITU’s approach to internet governance, emphasizing its multilateral structure and broader mandate compared to other organizations like ICANN

Speakers

– Dr. Xiao Zhang
– Sadhvi Saran

Arguments

ITU membership is based on multilateral membership structure, which creates unique difference from other organizations

ITU’s work is broader than ICANN’s focus on coordinating domain name systems

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Unexpected consensus

Active collaboration with ICANN despite organizational differences

Speakers

– Dr. Xiao Zhang
– Sadhvi Saran

Arguments

I know some of you are working also at ICANN. And we are also working on some public-related issues

Active collaboration exists with ICANN including mutual participation in meetings and ITU participation in ICANN’s governmental advisory committee

Explanation

Despite emphasizing the differences between ITU and ICANN’s approaches and mandates, both speakers acknowledged and supported active collaboration between the organizations, showing that organizational distinctions don’t preclude cooperative working relationships

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Overall assessment

Summary

The speakers demonstrated strong consensus on the importance of multi-stakeholder engagement, the comprehensive scope of ITU’s internet governance work, the value of structured consultation processes, and the need for inclusive approaches to internet development. There was also agreement on ITU’s distinctive multilateral approach while maintaining collaborative relationships with other organizations.

Consensus level

High level of consensus among all speakers, with no apparent disagreements or conflicting viewpoints expressed. This strong alignment suggests effective coordination within the ITU structure and shared commitment to inclusive internet governance principles. The consensus supports the legitimacy and effectiveness of ITU’s approach to internet policy issues and indicates potential for successful implementation of their multi-stakeholder engagement strategies.

Different viewpoints

Unexpected differences

Overall assessment

Summary

This transcript represents a highly collaborative and informational session with no identifiable disagreements among speakers. All participants (Sadhvi Saran, Wojciech Berezowski, Dr. Xiao Zhang, and the audience member) were aligned in their understanding and presentation of the ITU Council Working Group on Internet’s mission and activities.

Disagreement level

No disagreement detected. The session was characterized by complementary presentations where speakers built upon each other’s points rather than challenging them. The only questions raised were clarificatory in nature, seeking more information rather than expressing dissent. This high level of consensus suggests strong internal alignment within the ITU working group, though it may also indicate limited diversity of perspectives in this particular forum. The implications for internet governance discussions are that while this demonstrates organizational coherence, broader policy debates may require more diverse stakeholder input to surface potential areas of disagreement or alternative approaches.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized the ITU’s commitment to addressing development challenges and ensuring internet accessibility for underserved populations, particularly focusing on inclusivity and connectivity issues

Speakers

– Dr. Xiao Zhang
– Sadhvi Saran

Arguments

Focus includes development aspects of internet to ensure it remains an inclusive, accessible, and resilient global resource

Current consultation focuses on ensuring meaningful connectivity to internet for landlocked developing countries (LLDCs)

Topics

Development | Infrastructure

Both speakers highlighted the distinctive nature of ITU’s approach to internet governance, emphasizing its multilateral structure and broader mandate compared to other organizations like ICANN

Speakers

– Dr. Xiao Zhang
– Sadhvi Saran

Arguments

ITU membership is based on multilateral membership structure, which creates unique difference from other organizations

ITU’s work is broader than ICANN’s focus on coordinating domain name systems

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Key takeaways

The ITU Council Working Group on Internet serves as a unique multilateral platform for developing international public policy on internet-related issues, established in 2010

The working group operates through a dual structure: member state meetings bi-annually and open multi-stakeholder consultations that welcome all types of participants

Current focus includes critical areas such as multilingualization, internet resource management, security/sustainability, and bridging the digital divide

The group has conducted 10 public consultations to date, with the current consultation focusing on meaningful internet connectivity for landlocked developing countries (LLDCs)

ITU’s approach differs from ICANN in scope (broader policy issues vs. domain name coordination) and structure (multilateral membership-based vs. nonprofit model), though both organizations collaborate actively

The working group emphasizes inclusive participation from governments, private sector, academia, civil society, technical community, and individuals to ensure diverse perspectives inform policy development

Resolutions and action items

Participants are invited to contribute to the ongoing LLDC consultation through written submissions until August 8, 2025

A consultation meeting will be held in Geneva between September 7-14, 2025, with both in-person and remote participation options

Stakeholders are encouraged to attend the WSIS Plus 20 high-level event scheduled for July 7-11, back-to-back with the AI for Good summit

All stakeholders are invited to participate in future consultations and engage with the working group’s activities

Unresolved issues

The exact date for the September 2025 Geneva consultation meeting has not been finalized

Specific details about how the consultation results will be integrated into ITU policy development were not fully explained

The historical relationship and coordination mechanisms between ICANN and ITU were mentioned but not elaborated upon

The process for how member states use consultation inputs in their decision-making was not detailed

Suggested compromises

None identified

What are the differences, for example, between ITU and ICANN in terms of the internet public policy issues?

Speaker

Professor Xu from the Communication University of China

Reason

This question is insightful because it addresses a fundamental issue of institutional overlap and differentiation in internet governance. It challenges the presenters to clearly articulate their unique value proposition and role in the complex ecosystem of internet governance organizations, forcing them to think beyond their prepared presentation about their distinct mandate.

Impact

This question significantly shifted the discussion from a one-way presentation format to an interactive dialogue. It prompted multiple speakers to respond and clarify their organization’s positioning, leading to a more substantive explanation of ITU’s membership-based approach versus ICANN’s technical coordination role. The question opened up a deeper conversation about institutional relationships and collaborative mechanisms in internet governance.

I think ITU membership is very based on the membership. So that’s a very unique difference.

Speaker

Dr. Xiao Zhang

Reason

While brief, this comment is thought-provoking because it highlights a fundamental structural difference in internet governance approaches – the membership-based, state-centric model versus other governance structures. It touches on the core tension in internet governance between traditional multilateral approaches and multi-stakeholder models.

Impact

This comment provided a foundation for Sadhvi Saran’s more detailed explanation that followed. It served as a pivot point that allowed the discussion to evolve from a simple comparison to a more nuanced explanation of how different governance models can coexist and collaborate, as evidenced by Saran’s subsequent comments about active collaboration between the organizations.

So the work is a little bit broader than what ICANN is doing in terms of its work as a nonprofit, focusing on coordinating the domain name systems. But we collaborate very actively. They come to ITU. We go to their meetings. We’re part of the governmental advisory committee, so there’s a lot of collaboration.

Speaker

Sadhvi Saran

Reason

This comment is insightful because it demonstrates sophisticated understanding of institutional relationships in internet governance. Rather than positioning organizations as competitors, it presents a collaborative ecosystem model where different organizations have complementary rather than competing roles. It also reveals the practical mechanisms through which collaboration occurs.

Impact

This response effectively resolved the potential tension raised by the initial question about organizational differences. It shifted the conversation from a potentially divisive comparison to a collaborative framework, demonstrating how different governance approaches can work together. This comment helped conclude the substantive part of the discussion on a constructive note, showing institutional maturity in internet governance.

Overall assessment

The key comments transformed what began as a standard organizational presentation into a more meaningful dialogue about internet governance structures and institutional relationships. Professor Xu’s question served as the critical catalyst that moved the discussion beyond promotional content to substantive policy discourse. The responses from Dr. Zhang and Sadhvi Saran demonstrated how thoughtful questions can elicit more nuanced explanations of complex institutional arrangements. These exchanges revealed the sophisticated collaborative mechanisms that exist in internet governance, moving the conversation from ‘what we do’ to ‘how we fit into the broader ecosystem.’ The discussion’s evolution shows how a single well-placed question can elevate the entire level of discourse and provide genuine value to participants seeking to understand the landscape of internet governance institutions.

What are the specific dates for the Geneva consultation meeting in September 2025?

Speaker

Professor Xu from the Communication University of China

Explanation

The exact dates for the consultation meeting were not available at the time of the discussion, with only a general timeframe of September 7-14 mentioned

What are the detailed differences between ITU’s Council Working Group on Internet and ICANN’s work on internet public policy issues?

Speaker

Professor Xu from the Communication University of China

Explanation

While some differences were mentioned (membership-based vs. nonprofit structure), the response indicated there is a long history between the organizations that requires further clarification

How can the collaboration between ITU and ICANN be better understood and potentially enhanced?

Speaker

Implied from Dr. Zhang’s response

Explanation

Dr. Zhang mentioned it’s ‘hard’ to explain the relationship and that there’s a long history, suggesting this area needs more detailed exploration

What specific strategies and solutions will emerge from the LLDC consultation process?

Speaker

Implied from the presentation structure

Explanation

The consultation on meaningful connectivity for landlocked developing countries is ongoing until August 2025, with results and strategies to be developed from stakeholder input

Summary

This workshop focused on upgrading digital governance at the local level through the Local Online Service Index (LOSI) methodology, a collaborative framework developed by the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA) and the United Nations University Institute on Computing and Society (UNU-EGOV). The LOSI project assesses municipal government portals across 95 indicators in six categories: institutional framework, technology, content provision, service provision, participation engagement, and e-government literacy. Since its pilot launch in 2018 with 40 cities, the initiative has expanded to cover 193 UN member states’ most populous cities and has been implemented in various countries including Brazil, India, South Korea, and Tunisia through partnerships with local organizations.

The Tunisian E-Government Society presented a comprehensive case study of their LOSI implementation, which assessed 24 municipalities across all Tunisian governorates. Their findings revealed that 37% of municipalities fell into the middle digital maturity category while 63% were classified as low, indicating significant room for improvement. The Tunisian team innovatively developed a two-phase approach: first conducting assessments using the LOSI framework, then implementing targeted improvements through a “quick fixes” methodology that categorizes potential enhancements as easy, moderate, or hard adjustments based on complexity and resource requirements.

The second phase demonstrated practical results, with one pilot municipality (Reba) improving its score from 30% to 39% after implementing the first batch of easy fixes, with projections suggesting scores could exceed 50% with full implementation. The discussion emphasized the crucial role of civil society organizations in bridging gaps between citizens and governments, particularly in resource-limited contexts. The workshop concluded by highlighting how this collaborative approach between international organizations, civil society, and local governments creates a replicable model for enhancing digital governance worldwide.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **LOSI Methodology and Partnership Framework**: The Local Online Service Index (LOSI) is a collaborative assessment tool developed by UNDESA and UNU-IGOV to evaluate digital governance at the municipal level. The framework uses 95 indicators across six categories to measure city portal effectiveness, with partnerships established through MOUs between UN agencies and local organizations.

– **Tunisia Case Study Implementation**: The Tunisian e-Government Society successfully applied the LOSI methodology across 24 municipalities, finding that 63% fell into the “low” digital maturity category while 37% achieved “middle” ranking. This assessment covered all 24 governorates of Tunisia and provided comprehensive baseline data.

– **Innovative “Quick Fixes” Improvement Framework**: Tunisia developed a practical three-tier improvement system (easy, moderate, hard adjustments) to help municipalities enhance their digital services. Their pilot with Reba municipality demonstrated concrete results, increasing the LOSI score from 30% to 39% after implementing the first batch of easy fixes.

– **Global Expansion and Replication**: The LOSI network has expanded to nine published reports across multiple countries including Brazil, India, South Korea, UK, and others. The methodology is designed to be adaptable to local contexts while maintaining global comparability standards.

– **Multi-stakeholder Collaboration Model**: The discussion emphasized the critical role of civil society organizations, international bodies, and local governments working together. The Tunisian case exemplified how NGOs can serve as bridges between citizens and government, particularly in resource-limited environments.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to showcase how the LOSI methodology can be practically implemented to assess and improve digital governance at the local level, using Tunisia’s experience as a concrete example of successful multi-stakeholder collaboration in digital transformation.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a consistently professional and collaborative tone throughout. It began with formal introductions and technical explanations, evolved into an enthusiastic presentation of practical results from Tunisia, and concluded with forward-looking remarks about expansion and replication. The tone was optimistic and solution-oriented, emphasizing partnership, innovation, and the potential for scaling successful approaches globally. There was a sense of urgency toward the end due to time constraints, but this did not diminish the overall positive and constructive atmosphere.

Speakers

– **Sabrine Dachraoui** – Project coordinator of the LOSI application in Tunisia, Tunisian e-Governance Society

– **Morten Meyerhoff Nielsen** – United Nations University e-government section (UNU-IGOV), based in Portugal

– **Participant** –

– **Deniz Susar** – United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA), moderator of the session

– **Salsabil Yakoubi** – Tunisian e-Governance Society, colleague of Sabrine Dachraoui

– **Audience** –

– **Dimitris Sarantis** – UNU-IGOV (United Nations University Institute on Computing and Society)

**Additional speakers:**

– **Aaron** – Works alongside Dennis at UNDESA in New York, involved in UK application of LOSI methodology

– **Steve McDowell** – Florida State University in Tallahassee, Florida

– **Emmanuel Oruk** – From Uganda (mentioned as asking a question via chat)

– **Yusuf Yusufovic** – Director-General of the Center for Digital Governance in Turkey (mentioned in opening but did not speak)

# Comprehensive Workshop Report: Upgrading Digital Governance at the Local Level Through the LOSI Methodology

## Executive Summary

This workshop presented a comprehensive examination of the Local Online Service Index (LOSI) methodology, a collaborative framework developed by the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA) and the United Nations University Institute on Computing and Society (UNU-CS) to assess and improve digital governance at the municipal level. The session featured a detailed case study from Tunisia, demonstrating how civil society organisations can successfully implement international assessment frameworks to drive practical improvements in local government digital services.

The discussion highlighted the critical importance of local digital governance, with over 65% of Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) targets falling under local authority jurisdiction. The LOSI framework addresses this significance through a standardised methodology employing 95 indicators across six categories to assess municipal digital services across 193 cities worldwide.

## Participants and Context Setting

**Deniz Susar** from UNDESA opened the session by establishing the workshop’s purpose within the broader context of digital cooperation and multi-stakeholder collaboration. She emphasised that the session exemplified cross-functional cooperation between the technical community, private sector, civil society, and governments.

**Dimitris Sarantis** from UNU-CS provided crucial context by highlighting that over 65% of SDG targets fall under local authority jurisdiction, establishing local digital governance as essential for global sustainable development. The LOSI framework emerged from recognition that whilst national e-government assessments exist, local government digital services—which often represent the primary interface between citizens and government—lacked comprehensive evaluation mechanisms.

**Morten Meyerhoff Nielsen** from UNU-CS detailed the methodology’s development and global implementation, while **Sabrine Dachraoui** and **Salsabil Yakoubi** from the Tunisian e-Governance Society, a 10-year-old NGO with three international publications, presented their comprehensive implementation case study.

## LOSI Methodology Framework

The LOSI framework provides a standardised methodology with 95 indicators distributed across six key categories: institutional framework, technology, content provision, service provision, participation engagement, and e-government literacy. The assessment employs a binary scoring system where two independent assessors evaluate each portal, providing clear, quantifiable measurements of digital maturity levels.

Since its pilot launch in 2018 with 40 cities, the initiative has expanded to cover 193 cities (one per UN member state). The scoring ranges are: Very high (0.75-1), High (0.5-0.74), Middle (0.25-0.49), and Low (0-0.24). This approach enables both individual city assessments and comparative analysis across different municipalities and countries.

The framework’s strength lies in its ability to provide triangulation between national and local assessments. The methodology allows for customisation to local contexts and priorities, with some countries complementing core indicators with additional measures whilst maintaining global comparability.

One key finding from the 2024 survey revealed that national portals still tend to outperform local ones. However, cities with strong collaboration between national and municipal governments, as well as those with clear institutional frameworks, consistently score higher.

## Global Implementation and Partnership Model

The LOSI network has expanded through strategic partnerships established via memorandums of understanding between UN agencies and local organisations. Nine published reports now exist across multiple countries including Brazil, India, South Korea, and the United Kingdom, with each implementation adapted to local contexts whilst maintaining methodological consistency.

Current ongoing applications include the United Kingdom (involving partnerships with both the Ministry of IT and universities), Mozambique, Tanzania, and Saudi Arabia. The UK application demonstrates innovative partnerships leveraging university students and cross-functional collaboration.

The partnership model enables international organisations to provide standardised frameworks and global best practices whilst local partners contribute contextual knowledge and implementation capacity. The methodology’s flexibility allows for adaptation to varying local government contexts, as local service delivery varies significantly by country, with some municipalities responsible for 80% of citizen services whilst others have more limited mandates.

## Tunisia Case Study: Comprehensive Implementation

The workshop’s centrepiece was a detailed presentation showcasing Tunisia’s comprehensive LOSI implementation across 24 municipalities representing all 24 Tunisian governorates. The project timeline included MOU signing in March 2024, training in April-May, and data collection in July, with Tunisia currently undergoing a decentralization process.

### Assessment Phase Results

The Tunisian assessment revealed that 37% of municipalities achieved middle-category rankings whilst 63% fell into the low category, indicating substantial opportunities for improvement across Tunisia’s municipal digital infrastructure. The binary scoring system across 95 indicators provided granular insights into different aspects of e-governance performance, with some municipalities achieving strong scores in e-literacy categories whilst performing poorly in other areas.

### Innovative “Quick Fixes” Framework

The Tunisian team’s most significant contribution was developing an improvement methodology that transforms the LOSI assessment from a diagnostic tool into an actionable improvement framework. Their “quick fixes” framework categorises potential improvements into three tiers based on complexity and resource requirements:

– **Easy adjustments**: Low-complexity changes requiring minimal resources

– **Moderate adjustments**: Medium-complexity improvements requiring moderate investment

– **Hard adjustments**: Complex changes requiring significant resources and time

This categorisation enables systematic and manageable implementation of digital enhancements, making improvements accessible to resource-constrained municipalities.

### Pilot Implementation Results

The practical effectiveness of the quick fixes framework was demonstrated through a pilot implementation with Reba municipality. After implementing the first batch of easy fixes, the municipality’s LOSI score improved from 30% to 39%, with projections suggesting scores could exceed 50% with full implementation of all recommended changes.

This batch-based approach enables manageable collaboration with municipalities whilst building trust and demonstrating feasibility. The strategy addresses key challenges in municipal engagement: establishing formal channels and building initial trust with local government officials.

## Implementation Challenges and Solutions

### Engagement and Trust Building

The Tunisian team described challenges in establishing formal engagement channels with municipalities and building initial trust. They addressed these challenges through strategic outreach using existing networks and providing clear documentation to demonstrate the value proposition of LOSI assessments.

### Resource Constraints

Resource limitations affect both assessment organisations and municipalities. The Tunisian case demonstrated how civil society organisations can supplement resource constraints through volunteer engagement and strategic partnerships, while the UK application leverages university students and academic partnerships.

### Contextual Adaptation

**Steve McDowell** from Florida State University raised questions about local government size and scope parameters, highlighting the challenge of meaningful comparisons across different contexts. The discussion revealed that flexible methodology application is essential, allowing countries to adapt frameworks to their specific contexts whilst maintaining comparability standards.

## Systemic Challenges and Policy Enablers

**Morten Meyerhoff Nielsen** identified that local digital governance frameworks cannot operate in isolation. National policy enablers such as electronic identification and digital signatures are essential prerequisites for transactional service delivery, creating dependencies that affect even well-resourced municipalities in developed countries.

Examples from Canada and the UK demonstrate that structural barriers to local digital service delivery exist even in advanced economies, highlighting the need for coordinated multi-level governance approaches. Private sector partnerships are essential for technological upgrades and infrastructure development, complementing national policy enablers.

## Accessibility and Inclusion Considerations

**Emmanuel Oruk** from Uganda raised an important question about accessibility for persons with disabilities, asking whether the LOSI methodology adequately considers accessibility requirements. **Dimitris Sarantis** responded that the framework does include checking for accessibility features, though this remains an area requiring continued attention to ensure equitable service delivery for all citizens.

## Future Directions

The workshop concluded with discussion of future directions for LOSI methodology expansion. **Deniz Susar** emphasised that international collaboration opportunities remain open for other countries to apply the methodology through memorandums of understanding with UN agencies.

The Tunisian team committed to continuing with a second round of implementation to measure progress over time, providing longitudinal data on digital governance improvement trajectories. Documentation and partnership frameworks will be made available to facilitate replication in other countries, with the Tunisian innovation in improvement methodology potentially becoming a standard component of LOSI implementations globally.

The team mentioned that their work was presented at ICEGov in Pretoria, South Africa, and that a recorded webinar and official report are available on the UNDESA website.

## Key Insights

Several critical insights emerged from the discussion:

### Civil Society Leadership

The workshop demonstrated how civil society organisations can effectively lead digital governance assessments and improvements whilst maintaining collaborative relationships with government entities.

### Methodological Innovation

The Tunisian quick fixes framework represents a significant methodological advancement that transforms assessment tools into actionable improvement strategies, showing how local adaptations can enhance the original framework.

### Multi-Stakeholder Collaboration

The discussion emphasised the critical role of diverse stakeholder engagement, with civil society organisations serving as crucial bridges between citizens and governments, particularly in resource-limited contexts.

## Conclusion

The workshop successfully demonstrated how the LOSI methodology can be practically implemented to assess and improve digital governance at the local level. The Tunisian case study provided compelling evidence of successful multi-stakeholder collaboration and methodological innovation.

The session highlighted that successful local digital governance requires coordination across multiple levels and stakeholders, from national policy enablers to local implementation partnerships. The combination of standardised frameworks with local innovation and multi-stakeholder collaboration creates sustainable pathways for digital transformation at the municipal level.

The workshop’s emphasis on practical results, innovative methodologies, and collaborative partnerships provides a foundation for continued expansion of local digital governance assessment and improvement initiatives worldwide.

Deniz Susar: and Yusuf Yusufovic, the Director-General of the Center for Digital Governance in Turkey. Good morning everyone. Welcome to the workshop Upgrading Digital Governance at the Local Level, workshop 3.0.2. We have 60 minutes in front of us. I will moderate this session. My name is Deniz Susar from United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. I just want to give you a brief background what this workshop is about. At our department we look at how governments are using technology through our United Nations e-government survey. We look at 193 UN member states and try to measure their online progress. This e-government survey has been continuing since 2003. Since 2018 we also started looking at how the local level, specifically cities, are using online services. This is in partnership with United Nations University e-government section who is based in Portugal and Mortan is with me. We started with 40 cities in 2018, the most populous city in 40 countries. Then eventually we expanded to 193 cities. However, after getting feedback from stakeholders, the feedback was basically one city per country is not enough, can we do more? Together with UNU we developed a methodology so that our application in one city can be spread to several cities in a single country. This partnership is open to anyone. We’ve done some applications in various countries, for example Brazil, India, South Korea, a few of the names that come to mind. And of course today it is Tunisia. We recently applied the methodology together with the Tunisian e-government society so we will hear more from them. But I will ask colleagues so that they can put in the chat the link to where you can find, where you can learn more about this project. So again, we can partner as UNDESA with any government or non-government entity. We have a memorandum of understanding. We sign jointly after cleared by legal departments. Then the partnership starts. And with that, after that we share the methodology. We give access to the platform, to the entity who is running the project. In this case Tunisia e-government society. Then in our methodology at the national and at the local level, the portal of the city or the country needs to be assessed by two people who do not know each other. So at the global level, we recruit two people in each country, which is around 400 people. They assess the portals and then if there are any discrepancies, then we bring them together and we finalize the data. So the same happens at the city level. So again, I’ll give example of Tunisia e-government society. They choose number of cities in Tunisia and they recruit two people from each city and these people do the assessment. The results come to that entity and then they produce an outcome document and we do outreach like this. So it’s important, of course, to inform the city officials about their performance but also to share this experience with other countries so that they can learn from each other. So this is a very brief introduction to the project and to the objective of this workshop. So we want to expand further in several countries. This is our goal. Right now it’s happening in UK. Together with our partner in UK is the Ministry of IT and they are working together with the university. So we have two partnerships there. So I will stop here and give the floor to Morten just to explain further and then we will hear from the rest of the online speakers.

Morten Meyerhoff Nielsen: Thank you, Dennis. So as Dennis was saying, this is a partnership not just between UNDESA and UNU but also with local actors in a number of countries. So Tunisia will be presenting their results later during this session. But to put it into a context of why local government is important, we see that increasingly globally that there is strategic approaches to service delivery. Service delivery in some countries is mainly the mandate of central government. We see this particularly in smaller or low-income emerging economies. We see that in federal countries like the case of Brazil but also in India that local service delivery is taking place more on state level, so the regional level, or at the local government level. So for instance, in the context like we are in in Norway and other Nordic countries, local authorities, municipalities are responsible for some 80% of all service delivery to citizens and businesses. Only 20% is at central government. Tunisia is a country where there is a decentralization process in place and it’s also the latest report out of that. So what is the role of the LOSI network and the individual national applications of the framework? Well, it granulates the assessments that Denis and his colleagues do every two years of the largest city in each country. So that allows us, for instance, in India to say, well, we know that every two years Mumbai is assessed and that is then benchmarked with 192 other large cities globally. If we then do a LOSI framework application within that country looking at other cities, we suddenly have an amplifier where we can not only compare the progress, the strengths and weaknesses on local government service delivery online in the national context, but we can triangulate that with cities globally from the UNDESA biannual assessment or from other LOSI network applications. Now, naturally, local contexts matter. Priorities differ in different countries. So we’ve seen, for instance, that our partners in Korea and Brazil looked also at smart city-related indicators. So they complemented the core set of indicators to be assessed from the LOSI framework with a set of smart indicators related to mobility, waste, IoT and so forth to really complement that into the local context and the local national priorities. So this is where the LOSI framework is coming from. This is where the benefits are. And just to put some numbers on it, we have nine reports already published, so roughly three countries a year. There’s five ongoing. So the Tunisians are considering doing a second round. Mozambique, Tanzania, Saudi Arabia, India and Korea is also in their second round. So they’ve done an application of the framework once, but they’re doing it again after a few years to see what progress is within this larger sample of national cities. So this is the context in which the framework was developed and how it’s used. And also a little bit of a background on how it is working before we hand over to our Tunisian colleagues. That’s all from me.

Deniz Susar: Okay. Thank you so much, Mortan. So now let’s turn online. Our colleague Dimitris Sarantis is online, also from UNUIGOV. And I have to say this is a joint project between UNUIGOV and UNDESA. And we very much appreciate the ongoing collaboration. Dimitris.

Dimitris Sarantis: Thank you. Thank you, Denis. So good morning, everyone. The sound is going through. The sound is okay?

Deniz Susar: Yes, it’s okay.

Dimitris Sarantis: Okay. Thanks. Good morning, everyone. So after an introduction of Denis regarding the LOSI methodology and the brief talk for today. for more than regarding the use of a local assessment and the importance of it, adjusting it to the country needs. I would share some insights regarding the logic application from our team until now. So, it’s a pleasure to be here, even though virtually, to share some perspectives on the Local Online Service Index and its transformative potential in advancing digital governance at municipal level. As said also from Morten and Deniz, logic plays a critical role in supporting the achievement of sustainable development goals, especially SDG 11, making cities inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable. As the 2024 United Nations Sea Government Survey highlights, over 65% of SDG targets fall under the jurisdiction of local authorities. So, this makes local digital governance not only relevant, but also essential. City portals are becoming the digital front doors of municipalities, providing residents with access to vital services, from waste management, public transport, to social protection and participatory budgeting. Logic helps cities assess and improve these services, using, at least for the last edition, 95 indicators across six categories. Since its pilot, as Deniz said also, in 2018, logic has evolved significantly. The 2024 edition now includes all 193 United Nations member states, most popular cities. It goes further by introducing e-government literacy in the last edition as a new category, recognising that digital inclusion requires not just access, but also the skills to engage. From real-time communication tools, to free Wi-Fi access points and multilingual platforms, cities are making progress, but challenges remain, especially around funding and the digital divide. One of the key findings from the 2024 survey is that national portals still tend to outperform local ones. However, we have seen that cities with strong collaboration between national and municipal governments, as well as those with clear institutional frameworks, score higher. This indicates that vertical alignment and shared governance models are crucial for digital success. So logic, we can say that it is not just an assessment tool, we can consider it as a framework for collaboration. In recent years, we have expanded its application beyond the most popular cities. So thanks to partnerships coordinated by UNDES and UNEGOV, as Dennis said also, countries like Tunisia, that we will hear afterwards, Uzbekistan, Korea, Greece, India, Jordan and Brazil, have implemented logic at sub-national levels. This decentralisation of digital diagnostics allows for more targeted interventions and knowledge sharing. Our aim and our hope is to see more countries join this logic network to strengthen their local digital capacities. Closing, and before giving the floor to Tunisian partners, I would say that logic is a powerful vehicle for cities to not only benchmark their progress, but also to learn from each other. With a growing pressure on cities to deliver inclusive and smart services, it is critical that we embed data-driven participatory and people-centred approaches into local governance. So I look forward to today’s discussion and to supporting more cities on their digital transformation journey. So before giving the floor to Sabrin, I would invite all participants with physical presence or online presence to submit their questions, their comments, orally or written to the chat, and so to have a discussion after the presentation from the Tunisian partners. Thank you, Sabrin.

Deniz Susar: Thank you, Dimitrius. So I think we clearly explained what this is about. I hope it’s clear to everyone as well. So I think it’s time to see it really in action, Sabrin. So the floor is yours and your colleagues. So if you can show us what this is about and what you did in Tunisia.

Sabrine Dachraoui: Thank you, Denise. Thank you, Morten as well, and Dimitrius. I would like to extend my deepest appreciation to our partners at the UNDESA and UNEU Governance Unit for making this session possible, the IGF Secretariat as well for believing in the session topic, as well as the audience for joining us today to talk about Tunisia. Before we begin the presentation, allow me to introduce myself and my colleagues. My name is Sabrin Dasharawi. I’m the project coordinator of the LUCI application in Tunisia. And I’m honoured to be here today with my colleague in the society, Selsabid Laiaqoubi, to share the latest updates and upgrades we’ve implemented at the local level. Okay, so before we… So in this session, we will focus mainly on two parts. Which represent the two most critical phases of the project. So in the next slide, you will find key messages of our session. I don’t know, Selsabid, if the audience is seeing the screen.

Deniz Susar: Yes, we see.

Sabrine Dachraoui: If you’re seeing the screen, moving to the next slide.

Deniz Susar: No, still at the first one.

Sabrine Dachraoui: Okay. Yes, now we see. Now we can see? Okay. Selsabid, if we can go back just quickly to key messages. Before I leave the floor to you to present the rest of the presentation. Good. We see right now, official partnership with the United Nations slide. If we can just move to the first part. Maybe you can continue explaining while the slide is coming up. Okay, so the first part of the presentation is…

Deniz Susar: Maybe you can continue explaining while the slide is coming on.

Sabrine Dachraoui: Okay, no problem. Okay, I’ll share from my side. Okay, I’ll share from my side. So I don’t know if the audience can see the screen moving.

Deniz Susar: It’s… Yes, we see now the first. Now we see the key messages. Please continue.

Sabrine Dachraoui: Okay, so in this presentation, we’re going to be mainly focusing on two phases of the LUCI project or LUCI implementation in Tunisia, assessing the MGP, which is the municipal government portals, using the LUCI framework, and the second phase, which is improving the municipal website using the LUCI-based approach. So for the LUCI application in Tunisia, and before I go ahead and introduce our work, I would like to give a quick introduction about our society. So our name is the Tunisian e-Governance Society. We are a non-governmental organization. We’ve been practicing for 10 years now. These are some of our vision, our mission and our goals. So we focus on transparent, intelligent and participatory governance model, smart governance, develop innovative policies as well. And we focus on using technology. We focus on open data and we focus on smart governance. And we are also involved in other initiatives. We’re not just in, let’s say, in LUCI assessment or engaged in LUCI project. We also have other initiatives with civil society, with academia and with other entities. We have here the Open Geodata Hackathon, the Metaverse Summit and our participation in the Open Government Week, where we presented our evaluation for ministry portals as well. So we also have three recently publications, international publications to our record. In March last year, we signed a memorandum of understanding with our partners at the UNDESA. just to highlight our collaboration on the LUCI methodology and its application in Tunisia. Of course, we have achieved a significant milestone in implementing the project in Tunisia. As you can see here, the timeline for our achievements, we first participated in the ICEGov last year’s edition in Pretoria, South Africa. We also published our report, which you can find it in the official website of the UNDESA. Our participation last year in the IGF through an open forum with our partners as well, UNDESA and UNU. And last, we have a recorded webinar where we presented our findings about the LUCI application in Tunisia. So this is a quick overview about, let’s say, our team structure. We have the project management, we have the review experts who are taking care of the review phase, and then we have our assessors. This is just to give you a quick overview about the expertise that we have in the team. With that, I leave you with my friend SALSABIL YAKOUBI to present to you the first phase and the second phase of our LUCI project. SALSABIL, the floor is yours.

Deniz Susar: Yes, just to remind the time as well, so if you can finish around 15 minutes, so we give some time for questions. Okay.

Salsabil Yakoubi: Thank you, everyone. So now we’re going to start presenting our phase one, which was basically evaluating the municipal websites using the LUCI framework. And so here we have the timeline for our LUCI project detailing the key phases throughout 2024, where we began the project initiation and the signing of the MOU in March, and this was followed by scope definition and comprehensive team training in April and May, data collection assessment from mid-July, with assessment reviews conducted in August. The crucial phase of result analysis and report development spanned from August to September, culminating in the presentation of our findings in November, and the structured approach ensured thorough and systematic application of the LUCI framework. And the primary goal of the LUCI assessment is, at the end of the day, to identify digital maturity of municipality-based portals for criteria communicated by UNTESA. And the assessment process begins with preparing a final list of municipality portals to be assessed, and then teams are assigned in pairs to these municipalities. The pre-assessment phase involves two key steps. First, reviewing the UN local e-government toolkit to gain a comprehensive understanding of LUCI groupings, ranges, indicators, and criteria. And secondly, thoroughly understanding the questionnaire and the LUCI indicators explained in the instruction column. Finally, the assessment involves filling out the LUCI questionnaire by scoring each evaluated indicator in the municipal government portal with a simple yes or no. And so here we’re going to try to just give you a quick demonstration of how that would work. And so we just picked three indicators for which belong to the content provision category. And starting off with, like, to just show you a brief overview how the assessment goes. And for example, for number 222, that’s the MGP present the list of services provided by the municipality. So here we pulled up a municipal portal in Tunisia. And if we go to services, we go to civil status services, and we will find the different kinds of services that they have and more information about that. And so that satisfies that criterion. And then, for example, information about municipality history, demographics, graphical region, economy, tourism, etc. And so here we could find that in if we go to the city of Sfax and definition of the city, we do find that information. And so that then that indicator is satisfied, as you can see here. And then the last indicator that we wanted to show, for example, the availability of the portal in different languages. So for example, here, we could switch from English to French. And basically, we reiterate that process with all the 95 indicators in all six categories, and then calculate the score if it exists as zero, if it doesn’t exist as zero, if it exists as one, and then that score is divided by the total number of indicators, which is 95. And that is just a very brief overview of like how the assessment process works. And so going back to our presentation, here, we reiterate the similar like what basically what we were talking about. So the 2024 version of the LOCIE methodology introduces a significant new criterion, which is the e-government literacy or ELI, which Mr. Dimitris has already mentioned. And this expands the total number of indicators to 95 distributed across six distinct criteria. And these criteria include institutional framework with six indicators, technology with 12, content provision with 30, service provision with 22, participation engagement with 15, and the new e-literacy with 10 indicators. The scoring method is again binary, where an indicator receives a value of one if it exists in the municipal portal and zero if it’s missing. And raw scores for each city are then divided by the total number of indicators, 95, to produce the LOCIE scores ranging from zero to one. These scores are then used to identify the digital maturity level of each municipality, categorized as very high for between 0.75 to one, high between 0.5 to 0.74, middle between 0.25 to 0.49, and low for 0 to 0.24. And this structured approach allows for a clear and quantifiable assessment for digital maturity. And so this slide details the geographical and demographic scope of our assessment. And so our study actually covers all 24 governments of Tunisia, encompassing a total of 24 municipalities. And so this broad coverage allows for a comprehensive understanding of e-governance across the country at the local level. And this slide presents the overall LOCIE results of the evaluated municipalities, where we can observe that 37 of the municipalities.

Deniz Susar: Can you please go full screen to see the whole slide? Is it possible? Yes, we just see speaker mode now, yeah. Definitely. Is. Yeah, it’s better.

Salsabil Yakoubi: Okay, sweet. Thank you. And so, yeah, we go back to the talking about the Tunisian results. And so these are the overall results. And as we mentioned, 37% of the municipalities, specifically nine out of 24, are ranked within the middle group. Conversely, a larger portion, or 63% of 15 municipalities fall into the low group. And this indicates a significant opportunity for improvement in digital maturity across many of Tunisia’s municipalities. And we have this chart that visually represents the distribution across the LOCIE index, from zero to 100%, with categories of low, middle, high, and very high. But as you can see here, most of Tunisia’s municipalities like between the row and the middle ranges. And so the slides provide a more granular view of the LOCIE scores, highlighting the top three municipalities. for each criterion for service provision, content provision, and for lastly, the tech. These results indicate varying strains across different aspects of e-governance among municipalities. This is basically a continuation of our analysis of the LOSI scores per criterion for e-literacy. We see outstanding performance from these municipalities, all achieving a perfect 100% actually when it comes to e-literacy. This highlights strong digital literacy initiatives in those areas. In terms of participation and engagement and the institutional framework criterion, these are the top performance. These detailed breakdowns of the top performers helps us pinpoint specific areas for improvement within each municipality, guiding a targeted intervention for improvement. As for our recommendations and based on our findings, we found several to improve the e-governance in the Tunisian municipalities. Firstly, to advance digital services, we recommend establishing responsive communication channels through advanced technologies and leveraging citizen centricity in service digitization. Secondly, to improve content provision, municipalities should develop user-friendly interfaces, provide thorough statistical data, regularly update municipal governmental portals, user statistics, and other multilingual content. Thirdly, extending the framework of our instructions, which involves strengthening open data policies to promote transparency and addressing gaps in privacy regulations and the right to access government information, and obviously building trust and accountability with citizens. Finally, to enhance the technical features, we suggest developing advanced search features for easier content navigation, improving user support features like frequently asked questions and help desk numbers, and these recommendations aim to guide municipalities toward higher digital maturity. And so, moving on to our second phase, where we move from more theory to action, and where we aim to improve the municipal websites using a low C base approach. And so, we now transition to the second phase using, and this is initiated in March 2025, which builds upon the insights gained from our initial evaluation and focuses on implementing targeted improvements to enhance the digital maturity of municipal online services. This is where our recommendations begin to translate into tangible actions, and our current project is actually focused on improving municipal websites, and the goal of this initiative is multifaceted to leverage research from the first phase to increase partnership between local government and civil society and improve municipal portal accessibility, really, for user experience and promoting digital inclusion at the local level. And the outputs will include training municipal members on how to conduct their own website evaluation and producing a report highlighting improved scores. And so, this is a project timeline which began in March with scope definition and team structure, followed by defining quick fixes in April, and then the pre-implementation phase in May with the implementation phase taking place in June, and post-implementation, lesson learner recommendation, and of course, the final report publication will soon follow. And this initiative involves checking portals, before and after updates, identifying problems in access, speed, and ease of use, improving structure, and ultimately making it easier for people to use. And this collaborative effort with Tunisian municipalities is actually very, very crucial for enhancing the digital governance. And so, for our scope definition, which is, again, a very crucial step for the second phase of our project, we clearly defined the scope in which ensures that our efforts are targeted and effective in promoting the municipal websites based on the LOSI framework. And this involves identifying specific aspects of the website to be addressed and the expected outcomes. And in defining the scope for improving municipal websites, we established a clear criteria for the selecting the municipalities that we want to be working with. And this criteria include their geographical location, their initial LOSI score, and their responsiveness to collaboration. For selecting the results, our priorities given to municipalities with low LOSI score, specifically those ranging from 0% to 24%, indicating the greatest need for improvement. And we also have a location-based meeting method with on-site meetings for municipalities outside of the capital region, and online meetings for those within, like, that are more far there. And communications facilitated through phone calls and emails. And the systematic approach ensures we focus our efforts on where they are most needed, and we can have the greatest impact. And so, actually, for the next step, and it’s a crucial part of our improvement strategy, it involves identifying and prioritizing immediate impactful changes that can be implemented to enhance the municipal websites. And these quick fixes are designed to address the most passing issues identified during the initial assessment phase. And so, our quick fixes framework classifies indicators into three categories, as you can see here on the screen, based on their complexity and aiming to improve the municipality score. And it’s important to clarify that the classification is based on the general complexity of the tasks from an international perspective, not necessarily on what is, like, currently available or practiced at the national level. And we have three categories, as I previously mentioned, which are easy adjustments, moderate adjustments, and hard adjustments. And this framework allows us to prioritize and implement changes effectively, starting with the easiest and most impactful adjustments. Yeah, so just a reminder that if you could conclude in two minutes. Okay, sure. So, for our pre-implementation phase, we undertook several key steps to initiate collaboration with stakeholders, conducting their mapping and outreach, identifying key municipalities. Secondly, we performed profiling, collecting conceptual data, and then, we drafted standardized partnership frameworks. And then, we aligned our shared goals, engaging municipalities in defining the improvement priorities. Finally, we formalized the collaboration by launching a pilot implementation discussion, such as Reba, which we’ll go over now. And so, actually, our chosen pilot is Reba, which has a SLUCI score of 30.52, placing it in the middle category, which is moderate for maturity, with room for significant improvement. And as you could see here on the screen, this is how they score for their LUCI, for each category on their LUCI scores. And here, this is a breakdown of all the missing indicators in the service provision, and their categorization based on our quick fixes framework. And these are for our content provision, where we see a lot of easy adjustments for institutional framework, with only one missing, for engagement and participation, e-government literacy, and technology. And so, here, we have, basically, our approach to implementing the quick fixes is based on batches, and starting with a small group of eight, and this allows us to validate the feasibility of implementation, ensuring our changes are practical, achievable, and demonstrating improvements as possible, with a minimal time cost and technical requirements, building trust, step-by-step, with the municipalities. And we chose this method to enable impact, and keep the collaboration manageable with municipalities, maintaining continuous communication, and of course, since our work reflects the voluntary resource limited capacity. And so, as a quick example, these are the suggested batch, for the first batch, these are the suggestions we made for service provision, and for content provision, and then for institutional framework. And here, you could see, actually, the suggestions that we made to the municipalities being reflected on their municipal websites. And so, actually, after the first batch, the score jumped from 30 to 39%, still placing it in the middle category, but still, we here have a proof of concept that this does work. And this is the score that we anticipate, after implementing all the easy fixes that we categorized for the Srebrenica municipality, and the score could jump above. 50% which would place the municipality portal in the high category. And as for our challenges, we encountered several from the lack of formal engagement channels as often unclear to who to contact, from the initial contact on trust building as we had to introduce the LOSI framework from its inception and the whole build credibility. Of course, we have limited resources on both sides, but we did tackle that by strategic outreach as we used our network. We also prepared documentation such as a partnership documents and one pagers outlining goals, roles and expectations. And of course, with consistent follow up, maintaining the regular friendly communication to keep them engaged. And so we do recommend using the existing networks and providing clear materials and most importantly, maintaining ongoing communication with the local partners. And at the same time, we have to balance ambition with realism. That’s why we’re going for the easy fixes first. And that’s why we’re doing it in batches. And so the way forward, as we look at it, we do see looking ahead, proposing several strategies to advance e-governance in Tunisia from advocating civil society organizations to collaborate closely with the municipalities to assist in the collection and publication of essential data and fostering PVPs for crucial e-service expansion, encouraging co-development of essential online services. And of course, we believe in collaboration with other countries interested in applying the LOCIE methodology and these international partnerships can provide valuable insights and beneficial exchanges about the best LOCIE application. And finally, we emphasize the importance of collaboration with the private sector for the technological upgrades. And so these partnerships can provide expertise and infrastructure development needed. And thank you everyone for your attention. We hope the presentation provided valuable insights into the application of LOCIE in Tunisia and our efforts enhance digital municipal governance at the local level and we’re open to questions and further discussions.

Deniz Susar: Thank you. Thank you so much, SALSABIL YAKOUBI. I think this was very, very helpful and congratulations for your efforts in this project. So you are not only applying, but you are also giving guidance to the public officials, which is very much appreciated. We have a little bit of time now for questions. I’m just following the script given to me. But before, I also mentioned that we are applying LOCIE methodology in the UK right now. So Aaron, if you want to just say two minutes about that, we’ll appreciate and then we can get questions for everyone.

Participant: Sure. Is my audio coming through well? Yes. Great. First, I just want to say thank you to everyone that helped organize at IGF, as well as my colleagues from UNDESA. I work alongside Dennis in New York. I’m sure you guys don’t envy being in Oslo when in New York, it was about 40 degrees Celsius the past three days. So I enjoyed the weather in Oslo, as well as the other amazing sessions happening at IGF in the meantime. So as Dennis mentioned, I work on the UK application of the LOCIE methodology. And I think the overarching theme that was touched upon, but that I really want to highlight in this brief input is that I think working together is more important than ever in this digital world, especially when it comes to improving the government services. As far as I can tell so far, it’s still in progress, but the UK does seem to be alongside Tunisia leading in this area. And the application of this LOCIE methodology in the UK really shows how innovative partnerships can improve people’s everyday experiences through local government, and in many cases leveraging university students, collaborations with national as well as the local municipalities. I think LOCIE and the UN provide the bridge to be able to turn this into a conduit to improve people’s everyday lives through, like I said, the digital services that are provided within their local governments. And what I like about LOCIE is it focuses on the practical cooperation, it measures how effective local government websites are, and encourages the groups and the parties involved to share their ideas and the strategies. And this teamwork that’s integrated within the methodology itself results in online services that are easier to use, more transparent, and truly more reflective of people’s needs on the ground. Thank you. The main point here is simple, when we work together and collaborate cross-functionally, just like with LOCIE, we achieve stronger and more accessible services, and the UK, just like with Tunisia, provides a further example of how entities can work together to deliver the results, because that’s how we’ll continue to deliver real improvements for communities everywhere.

Deniz Susar: Yeah, thank you, Aaron. Thank you so much. Can I ask how many cities in the UK? Just quickly. Oh, we cannot hear you, but I… Aaron, you’re muted. I was asking how many cities did you apply in the UK? Okay, we will go back to Aaron. But now, Dimitrios, do we have any questions online, if we can take, or anyone here from the audience, please?

Dimitris Sarantis: Thanks, Dennis. I don’t see any questions in the chat at the moment, so I will invite once more participants to submit the questions in the chat. We have some time to respond to comments or questions. I would like to make just a small comment on the presentation of Salsabil. I would say that this is a very good example, a very good case of using logic methodology as an improvement framework for local government, because I knew that they have done a very good work in assessing municipalities in Tunisia. I was not aware for the next step. They went, Tunisian, as we see now, Tunisian partner went a step forward. So using the results from logic applications to really not only improve local government, but also to suggest methodological steps to do that. I was really surprised with this categorization of improvement steps in clusters, easy, medium, and more difficult to be implemented. This is very interesting, because it gives this easy win-win opportunity to local governments to design quickly and successfully improvements in the local government websites. Also this interaction that Tunisian partner in government society has with the local government authorities to apply the results of logic application in government is very interesting. So these are some comments that I have to do on the presentation, and I will pass the floor to Sabrin.

Deniz Susar: Let’s get one more question from the audience, and then we’ll get back to you. Thank you. Please, gentleman here.

Audience: Thank you. My name is Steve McDowell from Florida State University in Tallahassee, Florida. My question is about the term local government. What’s the scope of size? Because a city like Oslo could be called a local government, or a city with two or three hundred thousand people might be called local government and have very different sets of resources and size of citizens population that you’re dealing with.

Deniz Susar: Thank you. I think I can answer that one. So when we started this project, in order to cover as many people as possible, we started with the most populous city in each UN member state. So it is not the capital. Usually people confuse with that, but it is, for example, New York City in U.S. But we know U.S. has 50 states, and it’s very challenging to define. But when Tunisian colleagues apply the methodology in Tunisia, they choose each region. When we did in Brazil application, in Brazil, I think 50 states, they chose. largest city in each state, plus the capital city. So there is some flexibility there to extend. And the name doesn’t really reflect the application, so we are focusing more on cities.

Morten Meyerhoff Nielsen: If I may just complement that, the LOSI methodology, when colleagues like Dimitris go in and advise on how to apply the methodology in a specific country, we often suggest having a balanced approach. So when we talk about local government, in the UK they call it councils, in Denmark we call it municipalities, other countries have different names for that. But to try and find either a group of similar cases, so you can compare like with like as we say in academia, or try and get a representative sample. Because in most cases we can’t unfortunately assess every single local authority in a country. You also see that in some cases the city may not represent the whole metropole. So in Copenhagen for instance, it’s a city of some almost two million people in the metropole, but the municipality itself, Copenhagen, is 700,000 people. But the average size of a municipality in Denmark is about 55,000. So again, this is something we advise on, but it depends on the partner in terms of their resources and their strategic focus. But it’s then captured in the report what the case selection was,

Deniz Susar: and what the pros and cons are. Thank you very much. Sure, thank you for the question. Let’s go back to online again. Dimitrios, I think you had a question, or Sabrin wanted to say something.

Sabrine Dachraoui: I don’t know if we actually have questions, but thank you Steve for the intervention. That was actually a very interesting question. Our partners actually addressed the question very well. With that said, I would like to emphasize some points before we leave the floor for you, Denise and Morten, for the closing remarks, because we’re apparently running out of time. The main reason why we are here today at the IGF doing this session is because we believe in the potential of the joining forces. That said, our workshop is under the sub-theme of digital cooperation as it’s communicated, and it refers to the collaborative efforts between governments, the private sector, civil society, international organizations, all parties moving together to address global digital challenges. Some of the policy questions that we wrote in the descriptions, or we might go through them very briefly, as I said, the role of civil society and private sector. One of the significant takeaways from the Tunisian case study is the indispensable, let’s say, or important role of civil society. So we take us as an example, the Tunisian government society, we led the LOSI assessment, and this highlights how civil society organizations with their deep understanding of local communities can serve as crucial bridges between citizens and governments. They can independently collect data, they can assess services, they can provide valuable feedback, they can help governments identify gaps in areas of improvement to support governmental efforts. That’s a powerful model for advancing local digital governance, especially if governments or resources are limited. The next is the role of international organization and best practices. Now this is a scope, a scoop, sorry, for people who would like to collaborate with us. I would like to say is international organizations like UNDESA and UNU-IGOV play a vital role in this. Their provision of methodologies like LUSI along with guidance and support offers a framework, a standardized actually framework for assessment and global perspective on best practices. Another important note is that I know change can be challenging at some point. We want to see changes fast in local and our local governments, especially in our digital transformation journey, and that’s why addressing challenges in digital transformation requires a flexible approach, and this is what we were trying to apply in our second phase, is that we invented, let’s say, the quick fixes framework in that we wanted to apply this flexible approach of seeing the long term.

Deniz Susar: Just if you could conclude, so we have four minutes only. Okay, okay. But I want you to conclude in the next 15 seconds.

Sabrine Dachraoui: Okay, us as a society, I want to emphasize our openness to collaboration. So our team brings together experts across multiple disciplines, from technical implementation to policy design as well, giving us a unique holistic, let’s say, perspective of digital governance challenges.

Deniz Susar: If I can give two minutes to Morten, just to say, but Sabrin, you already started concluding the session. Your points are well taken and very to the point, Morten.

Dimitris Sarantis: I just wanted to put… Sorry Morten, before Morten, just one minute, because we have one question from the audience, from the participants. Can I make it? From Emmanuel Oruk from Uganda, how accessible

Deniz Susar: is it the project for a person with disabilities? Yeah, Dimitrios, if you can respond to that in

Morten Meyerhoff Nielsen: the chat, Morten. Okay, so I just wanted to put some of the findings of the Tunisian case into a global perspective, where the key weaknesses for the Tunisian municipalities are not the provision of information online, it’s more about transactional services. And this is where these findings also have a role to national policy and the role of national government in providing the key enablers for digital transactional services, like electronic identification, digital signatures, and providing also a national set of policy and technical components to enable and empower local authorities to deliver services online, not just information. And this is something we see not just being a challenge in emerging economies, we see this also in the classical global rich north, where federal countries, for instance, don’t have a national infrastructure for for e-identity or signatures. This is the case in Canada and the UK, for instance, and that becomes a barrier for transactional service delivery and the transactional development. So the local framework cannot work exclusively in isolation, it is linked to also national policy priorities and enablers and direction given from the national government. So that’s a very interesting outcome of the Tunisian in a regional perspective.

Deniz Susar: Thank you. Thank you so much, Mortan. And sorry for the rush, but we have two minutes about the accessibility question or any other one. We have relevant associated features with those, we are checking those, and I appreciate Dimitrios responding in the chat. So just to say a few words in the conclusion, I think Sabrin’s remarks was really to the point. So here at the IGF, this is the UN Secretary General’s Forum on Internet Issues. It brings technical community, private sector, civil society, and of course governments together, and I think this project was a very good example of that. So with the Tunisian E-Government Society who is leading this initiative, so we are reaching out to local government officials, but we are also creating collaboration. I think the second part of your presentation is an innovation. You are building on existing methodology and further expanding it, similar to our national and local E-Government toolkits, but you are really highlighting, and I think this will be a very good example for other countries to pick from here and learn from you. And I think it will definitely help others. So I just wanted to thank you for that and conclude this session here, and the recording will be available online, and I’m sure Sabrin, people interested will be in touch with us. So thank you very much, especially to the Tunisian E-Government Society for this excellent session. Thank you.

Agreement points

Multi-stakeholder collaboration is essential for effective digital governance

Speakers

– Deniz Susar
– Sabrine Dachraoui
– Participant

Arguments

Cross-functional collaboration between technical community, private sector, civil society, and governments exemplifies effective digital cooperation

Civil society organizations serve as crucial bridges between citizens and governments in digital governance initiatives

UK application demonstrates innovative partnerships leveraging university students and cross-functional collaboration

Summary

All speakers emphasized that successful digital governance requires collaboration across multiple stakeholders including government, civil society, private sector, academia, and international organizations, with each bringing unique capabilities and perspectives.

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory

LOSI framework provides standardized yet flexible methodology for digital governance assessment

Speakers

– Deniz Susar
– Dimitris Sarantis
– Morten Meyerhoff Nielsen
– Salsabil Yakoubi

Arguments

Partnership model between UNDESA and UNU enables global and local digital governance assessment

LOSI framework provides standardized methodology with 95 indicators across six categories for assessing municipal digital services

Framework allows triangulation between national and local assessments for comprehensive digital governance evaluation

Binary scoring system (0 or 1) across 95 indicators provides clear quantifiable assessment of digital maturity levels

Summary

Speakers agreed that the LOSI framework offers a robust, standardized methodology that can be adapted to different country contexts while maintaining global comparability and providing clear, quantifiable assessments.

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory

National policy enablers are crucial for local digital service delivery

Speakers

– Morten Meyerhoff Nielsen
– Salsabil Yakoubi

Arguments

National policy enablers like electronic identification and digital signatures are crucial for transactional service delivery

Results showed varying strengths across different e-governance aspects, with some municipalities achieving 100% in e-literacy

Summary

Both speakers recognized that local digital governance cannot operate in isolation and requires national government support through key infrastructure like electronic identification and digital signatures to enable full transactional services.

Topics

Infrastructure | Legal and regulatory

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized the critical role of international organizations in providing standardized frameworks and methodologies that enable consistent assessment and improvement of digital governance capabilities across different countries and contexts.

Speakers

– Sabrine Dachraoui
– Dimitris Sarantis

Arguments

International organizations provide standardized frameworks and global best practices for local digital transformation

LOSI framework provides standardized methodology with 95 indicators across six categories for assessing municipal digital services

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory

Both speakers recognized that local government contexts vary dramatically across countries in terms of size, resources, and service delivery responsibilities, requiring flexible approaches to digital governance assessment and implementation.

Speakers

– Deniz Susar
– Morten Meyerhoff Nielsen

Arguments

Local government size and resource variations require flexible methodology application adapted to country contexts

Local service delivery varies significantly by country context, with some municipalities responsible for 80% of citizen services

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory

Both speakers highlighted the importance of practical, collaborative approaches that build trust and demonstrate feasibility through manageable implementation strategies and innovative partnerships.

Speakers

– Salsabil Yakoubi
– Participant

Arguments

Batch-based approach enables manageable collaboration with municipalities while building trust and demonstrating feasibility

UK application demonstrates innovative partnerships leveraging university students and cross-functional collaboration

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory

Unexpected consensus

Civil society leadership in government digital transformation

Speakers

– Sabrine Dachraoui
– Deniz Susar
– Dimitris Sarantis

Arguments

Civil society organizations serve as crucial bridges between citizens and governments in digital governance initiatives

Cross-functional collaboration between technical community, private sector, civil society, and governments exemplifies effective digital cooperation

LOSI framework provides standardized methodology with 95 indicators across six categories for assessing municipal digital services

Explanation

It was unexpected to see such strong consensus on civil society organizations not just participating in but actually leading digital governance assessments and improvements, with government officials and international organizations fully endorsing this approach as effective and necessary.

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory

Innovation in methodology application beyond original framework

Speakers

– Salsabil Yakoubi
– Dimitris Sarantis
– Morten Meyerhoff Nielsen

Arguments

Quick fixes framework categorizes improvements into easy, moderate, and hard adjustments for systematic implementation

LOSI framework provides standardized methodology with 95 indicators across six categories for assessing municipal digital services

Framework allows triangulation between national and local assessments for comprehensive digital governance evaluation

Explanation

There was unexpected consensus on encouraging and celebrating methodological innovations that go beyond the original framework, with international organizations praising local adaptations and improvements rather than insisting on strict adherence to established protocols.

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion showed remarkable consensus across all speakers on the value of multi-stakeholder collaboration, the effectiveness of the LOSI framework as both assessment tool and improvement methodology, the need for flexible adaptation to local contexts, and the crucial role of national policy enablers. There was also strong agreement on the importance of civil society leadership and innovative approaches to implementation.

Consensus level

Very high level of consensus with no significant disagreements identified. This strong alignment suggests the LOSI methodology has achieved broad acceptance and validation across different stakeholder groups, indicating its potential for wider adoption and scaling. The consensus also validates the multi-stakeholder approach to digital governance as both effective and necessary for sustainable improvements.

Different viewpoints

Unexpected differences

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion showed remarkable consensus among all speakers with no direct disagreements identified. All participants aligned on the value of the LOSI methodology, the importance of multi-stakeholder collaboration, and the need for flexible implementation approaches.

Disagreement level

Very low disagreement level – this was a collaborative workshop presentation rather than a debate, with speakers building upon each other’s points rather than challenging them. The lack of disagreement suggests strong alignment on digital governance assessment methodologies and implementation strategies, which has positive implications for continued international cooperation and knowledge sharing in this domain.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized the critical role of international organizations in providing standardized frameworks and methodologies that enable consistent assessment and improvement of digital governance capabilities across different countries and contexts.

Speakers

– Sabrine Dachraoui
– Dimitris Sarantis

Arguments

International organizations provide standardized frameworks and global best practices for local digital transformation

LOSI framework provides standardized methodology with 95 indicators across six categories for assessing municipal digital services

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory

Both speakers recognized that local government contexts vary dramatically across countries in terms of size, resources, and service delivery responsibilities, requiring flexible approaches to digital governance assessment and implementation.

Speakers

– Deniz Susar
– Morten Meyerhoff Nielsen

Arguments

Local government size and resource variations require flexible methodology application adapted to country contexts

Local service delivery varies significantly by country context, with some municipalities responsible for 80% of citizen services

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory

Both speakers highlighted the importance of practical, collaborative approaches that build trust and demonstrate feasibility through manageable implementation strategies and innovative partnerships.

Speakers

– Salsabil Yakoubi
– Participant

Arguments

Batch-based approach enables manageable collaboration with municipalities while building trust and demonstrating feasibility

UK application demonstrates innovative partnerships leveraging university students and cross-functional collaboration

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory

Key takeaways

The LOSI (Local Online Service Index) framework provides a standardized methodology with 95 indicators across six categories to assess municipal digital governance maturity levels

Multi-stakeholder partnerships between UN agencies, civil society organizations, and local governments are essential for successful digital governance transformation

Tunisia’s implementation across 24 municipalities revealed that 63% fall in the low digital maturity category, indicating significant improvement opportunities

The innovative ‘quick fixes’ framework categorizing improvements as easy, moderate, or hard enables systematic and manageable implementation of digital enhancements

National policy enablers like electronic identification and digital signatures are crucial prerequisites for local transactional service delivery

Civil society organizations can effectively bridge the gap between citizens and governments by conducting independent assessments and providing improvement guidance

The LOSI methodology is adaptable to different country contexts and can be expanded beyond single cities to comprehensive regional assessments

Resolutions and action items

Tunisia will continue with a second round of LOSI implementation to measure progress over time

The UK application is ongoing with partnerships involving the Ministry of IT and universities

Tunisian e-Governance Society will complete their pilot implementation with Reba municipality and publish results

International collaboration opportunities are open for other countries to apply the LOSI methodology through memorandums of understanding

Documentation and partnership frameworks will be made available to facilitate replication in other countries

Unresolved issues

How to effectively address accessibility requirements for persons with disabilities in digital service assessments

Challenges in establishing formal engagement channels with local municipalities and building initial trust

Resource limitations on both assessment organizations and municipalities affecting implementation scope

Defining optimal local government size and scope parameters for meaningful comparisons across different country contexts

Balancing ambitious digital transformation goals with realistic implementation timelines and capabilities

Suggested compromises

Batch-based implementation approach starting with easy fixes to build trust and demonstrate feasibility before tackling complex improvements

Flexible methodology application allowing countries to adapt the framework to their specific contexts and priorities

Strategic outreach using existing networks and providing clear documentation to overcome initial engagement barriers

Balanced case selection approach comparing similar-sized municipalities or creating representative samples when comprehensive coverage isn’t feasible

Leveraging university students and academic partnerships to supplement resource constraints in assessment activities

Over 65% of SDG targets fall under the jurisdiction of local authorities. So, this makes local digital governance not only relevant, but also essential.

Speaker

Dimitris Sarantis

Reason

This statistic fundamentally reframes the importance of local digital governance from a ‘nice-to-have’ to a critical component of global sustainable development. It challenges the common focus on national-level digital initiatives by quantifying how much development work actually happens at the local level.

Impact

This comment established the foundational importance of the entire discussion and provided compelling justification for why local digital governance deserves significant attention and resources. It elevated the conversation from technical methodology to global development impact.

One of the key findings from the 2024 survey is that national portals still tend to outperform local ones. However, we have seen that cities with strong collaboration between national and municipal governments, as well as those with clear institutional frameworks, score higher.

Speaker

Dimitris Sarantis

Reason

This insight reveals a critical gap in digital governance while simultaneously pointing toward the solution. It moves beyond simple performance metrics to identify the structural and collaborative factors that drive success.

Impact

This observation shifted the discussion from purely technical assessments to governance relationships and institutional design, setting up the framework for understanding why some cities succeed while others struggle.

Our quick fixes framework classifies indicators into three categories… based on their complexity and aiming to improve the municipality score… easy adjustments, moderate adjustments, and hard adjustments.

Speaker

Salsabil Yakoubi

Reason

This represents a significant methodological innovation that transforms an assessment tool into an actionable improvement framework. It demonstrates practical problem-solving that makes digital governance improvements accessible to resource-constrained municipalities.

Impact

This comment marked a pivotal shift in the presentation from theoretical assessment to practical implementation. It generated visible excitement from other participants, with Dimitris specifically noting he was ‘surprised’ and impressed by this innovation, calling it ‘very interesting’ and highlighting the ‘easy win-win opportunity’ it creates.

The local framework cannot work exclusively in isolation, it is linked to also national policy priorities and enablers and direction given from the national government… This is the case in Canada and the UK, for instance, and that becomes a barrier for transactional service delivery.

Speaker

Morten Meyerhoff Nielsen

Reason

This comment provides crucial systemic perspective by identifying that even well-resourced developed countries face structural barriers to local digital service delivery. It challenges assumptions about what local governments can achieve independently and highlights the critical role of national infrastructure.

Impact

This insight recontextualized the entire discussion by showing that the challenges aren’t just about local capacity or resources, but about systemic policy and infrastructure gaps that exist even in advanced economies. It broadened the conversation from local implementation to multi-level governance coordination.

37% of the municipalities… are ranked within the middle group. Conversely, a larger portion, or 63% of 15 municipalities fall into the low group. And this indicates a significant opportunity for improvement in digital maturity across many of Tunisia’s municipalities.

Speaker

Salsabil Yakoubi

Reason

While presenting concerning statistics, this comment reframes poor performance as ‘significant opportunity,’ demonstrating a constructive, solution-oriented approach to digital governance challenges. It shows how assessment data can be used to motivate rather than discourage improvement efforts.

Impact

This framing helped maintain the discussion’s focus on solutions and possibilities rather than dwelling on deficiencies. It set the stage for the practical improvement strategies that followed and demonstrated how to use assessment results constructively.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally shaped the discussion by establishing a progression from global significance to practical implementation. Dimitris’s opening statistic about SDG targets created urgency and importance, while his observation about national-local collaboration identified critical success factors. The Tunisian team’s innovation with the ‘quick fixes’ framework represented the session’s most significant contribution, transforming the conversation from assessment to actionable improvement. Morten’s closing insight about systemic barriers provided essential context that elevated the discussion beyond local implementation to multi-level governance challenges. Together, these comments created a comprehensive narrative arc that moved from ‘why this matters globally’ to ‘how to make it work practically’ to ‘what systemic changes are needed.’ The visible enthusiasm and surprise from participants when the quick fixes framework was presented demonstrates how truly insightful contributions can energize and redirect academic discussions toward practical innovation.

How accessible is the project for a person with disabilities?

Speaker

Emmanuel Oruk from Uganda

Explanation

This question addresses the critical issue of digital inclusion and ensuring that local government digital services are accessible to all citizens, including those with disabilities, which is essential for equitable service delivery.

How many cities are being assessed in the UK application of the LOSI methodology?

Speaker

Deniz Susar

Explanation

This question seeks to understand the scope and scale of the UK implementation to better compare it with other country applications and assess the methodology’s reach.

What is the scope of size for local government in the LOSI methodology?

Speaker

Steve McDowell from Florida State University

Explanation

This question is important for understanding how the methodology accounts for the vast differences in resources, population size, and capacity between different local governments, which affects the validity of comparisons and assessments.

How can the quick fixes framework be applied and validated in other countries beyond Tunisia?

Speaker

Implied from Dimitris Sarantis’ comments

Explanation

The innovative categorization of improvements into easy, moderate, and hard adjustments represents a methodological advancement that could benefit other LOSI applications, requiring further research on its transferability and effectiveness.

How can national policy enablers (like e-identity, digital signatures) be better integrated to support local transactional services?

Speaker

Morten Meyerhoff Nielsen

Explanation

This addresses a key finding that local digital governance cannot work in isolation and requires national infrastructure and policy support, which is a challenge even in developed countries and needs further exploration.

What are the best practices for civil society organizations to effectively collaborate with municipalities in digital governance improvements?

Speaker

Sabrine Dachraoui

Explanation

The Tunisian case demonstrates the potential of civil society leadership in digital governance assessment and improvement, but more research is needed on replicating this model and overcoming collaboration challenges.

How can the LOSI methodology be adapted to include smart city indicators while maintaining comparability?

Speaker

Implied from Morten Meyerhoff Nielsen’s mention of Korea and Brazil applications

Explanation

Different countries have complemented the core LOSI indicators with smart city-related measures, raising questions about how to balance local customization with global standardization and comparability.

Summary

This discussion focused on combating misinformation and disinformation through collaborative fact-checking and verification efforts, featuring presentations from Norway’s Faktisk organization and the Philippines’ Rappler newsroom. Olav Ostrem from Faktisk explained how their organization was founded in 2017 as a collaborative effort between six major Norwegian media companies in response to the rise of fake news, Trump’s election, and Russian aggression against Ukraine. With only 15 employees, Faktisk operates two divisions: technical fact-checking and verification, and media literacy education, demonstrating how collaboration with media partners amplifies their reach and impact.

Morten Langfeldt Dahlback discussed the technological evolution of their fact-checking tools, moving from simple transcription services in 2017 to sophisticated AI-powered solutions including object recognition algorithms and facial expression analysis. He highlighted how the shift from text-based to audiovisual content on platforms like TikTok and Instagram required new verification methods, exemplified by their analysis of Norwegian flags in a National Day parade that debunked claims about foreign flag prevalence.

Silje Forsund detailed their verification work during the Ukraine conflict, explaining how competing Norwegian media outlets collaborated at a shared verification desk to authenticate images and videos flooding social media. She provided examples of their work, including exposing a staged video falsely claiming to show a Norwegian soldier’s death and using satellite imagery to document filtering camps and mass graves in conflict zones.

The discussion concluded with presentations from Rappler about building networks of truth-tellers and developing AI tools trained on verified content, emphasizing that combating disinformation requires global, collaborative efforts combining data analysis, community engagement, and technological innovation.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Collaborative fact-checking models**: Faktisk’s unique structure as Norway’s fact-checking organization, founded and owned by six major media companies, demonstrating how competing news organizations can work together to combat misinformation more effectively than individual efforts.

– **Evolution of misinformation tactics and verification methods**: The shift from text-based political fact-checking in 2017 to sophisticated audiovisual content verification, requiring advanced technical tools like AI object detection, facial recognition, and satellite imagery analysis to counter increasingly complex disinformation campaigns.

– **Real-time verification during crises**: The establishment of collaborative verification desks during major events like the Ukraine invasion, where journalists from competing organizations worked together to verify images and videos flooding social media, sharing skills and resources across the industry.

– **Technology-enhanced verification tools**: Development and deployment of AI-powered solutions including object recognition algorithms (YOLO), facial expression analysis, and data forensics mapping to track how disinformation spreads across networks and platforms at unprecedented speed and scale.

– **Community-based truth networks**: Rappler’s approach to building resilient information ecosystems through multisectoral coalitions like Facts First PH, combining data mapping, citizen engagement, and safe digital spaces to create networks of truth-tellers that can counter disinformation at the community level.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to share strategies and collaborative approaches for combating misinformation and disinformation in the digital age, showcasing how news organizations, technology partners, and communities can work together to verify content, educate citizens, and build resilient information ecosystems.

## Overall Tone:

The tone was professional and solution-oriented throughout, with speakers presenting their work as urgent but manageable challenges. The presenters maintained an optimistic outlook despite acknowledging the serious threats posed by disinformation, emphasizing collaboration and innovation as key to success. The tone remained consistently focused on practical solutions and shared learning, with audience questions reflecting genuine interest in the ethical and technical aspects of the work presented.

Speakers

– **Olav Ostrem**: News editor of Faktisk, Norway’s only fact-checking organisation

– **Morten Langfeldt Dahlback Rapler**: Head of technology at Faktisk

– **Silje Forsund**: Head of verification at Faktisk (also mentioned as head of strategy and innovation)

– **Speaker**: Role/title not specified

– **Audience**: Various audience members asking questions, including Surabhi from RNW Media (a media development organization based in the Netherlands)

Additional speakers:

– **Carla**: Representative from Rappler, a newsroom in the Philippines

# Comprehensive Report: Collaborative Approaches to Combating Misinformation and Disinformation

## Executive Summary

This discussion brought together practitioners from Norway’s Faktisk fact-checking organisation and the Philippines’ Rappler newsroom to examine collaborative strategies for combating misinformation and disinformation. The conversation focused on the evolution from text-based fact-checking to audiovisual content verification, emphasizing international cooperation, technological tools, and community engagement approaches.

## Key Participants and Their Roles

The discussion featured Olav Ostrem, news editor of Faktisk, Norway’s dedicated fact-checking organisation; Morten Langfeldt Dahlback, head of technology at Faktisk, who demonstrated verification tools and methodologies; and Silje Forsund, who was introduced as head of strategy and innovation but identified herself as head of verification at Faktisk. A Rappler representative presented the Philippine perspective on building truth-telling networks. Audience participation included Surabhi from RNW Media, who raised questions about AI implementation in journalism.

## The Collaborative Foundation: Faktisk’s Model

### Origins and Structure

Faktisk was founded in 2017 during what Olav described as “the tornado called Fake News.” The organisation’s distinguishing feature is its collaborative structure—it was founded and is owned by six major Norwegian media companies who recognised that working together against disinformation was more effective than competing individually.

As Olav explained: “We are only 15 people, so we need a little help from our friends.” This collaborative philosophy extends internationally, with Faktisk working with Nordic colleagues including Danish Tjekte, Swedish Kjellkritikbyrån, and Finnish Faktabari through the Nordic hub.

### Operational Framework

Despite having only 15 employees, Faktisk operates with two main functions: fact-checking and verification, and media literacy education. The organisation’s effectiveness is amplified through partnerships with media ecosystem partners who provide support, financing, and distribution channels.

## Technological Evolution in Verification

### From Text to Audiovisual Content

Morten detailed the technological evolution since Faktisk’s founding. Initially focused on transcription services for text-based political fact-checking, the organisation has adapted as misinformation evolved to sophisticated audiovisual content on platforms like TikTok and Instagram.

The organisation now employs advanced verification tools including object detection algorithms. A notable example involved analyzing footage from a Norwegian National Day parade to count flags and verify claims about the prevalence of foreign flags among Norwegian ones.

### AI Applications and Ethical Boundaries

The technological toolkit includes facial expression recognition technology for analyzing social media content patterns. However, Morten emphasized ethical limitations: these tools should only be used on public figures with significant impact, not private citizens, and personal information should be disaggregated from analyzed content.

Frame-by-frame video analysis has become crucial for identifying inconsistencies, editing cuts, and staging in propaganda content, allowing verification teams to identify subtle manipulations that could alter meaning or context.

## Crisis Verification: The Ukraine Conflict

### Collaborative Verification Response

The Ukraine invasion marked a significant shift in verification journalism. As Olav noted, the conflict brought “a flood of images and videos, and the big medias, they didn’t know what videos and images that occurred on social media that were to be trusted.”

This crisis prompted collaborative verification desks where journalists from competing Norwegian media organisations worked together in real-time to authenticate social media content, representing a departure from traditional competitive journalism models.

### Practical Verification Examples

Silje provided examples of their verification work, including exposing a staged video that falsely claimed to show the death of a Norwegian soldier. Through frame-by-frame analysis, the team identified inconsistencies and editing cuts that revealed the video’s fabricated nature.

The team also utilized satellite imagery and open-source intelligence to document conflict-related activities. Their training programs have equipped approximately 60 journalists worldwide in verification methods, particularly crucial for journalists working in conflict zones or in exile.

## Global Perspectives: The Philippine Model

### Network-Based Approaches

The Rappler representative introduced the Facts First PH coalition, which includes over 140 units working together across multiple sectors. This model demonstrates multi-sectoral approaches to combating disinformation through collective action extending beyond traditional media organisations.

The Philippine approach emphasizes understanding disinformation as orchestrated campaigns rather than random falsehoods: “You can’t fight what you can’t see… disinformation doesn’t just appear randomly, it is very much orchestrated.”

### Community Engagement Strategies

Rappler’s approach focuses on building networks through training programs and community roadshows. The organisation has developed AI tools trained on verified content to provide real-time fact-checking capabilities, creating digital spaces where communities can access reliable information.

The strategy recognizes that effective responses require understanding how disinformation spreads: “If lies spread a certain way, then we’re able to combat that by knowing where do they start, how are our audiences, our communities, responding to it, and what formats will they actually understand.”

## Technological Challenges and Ethical Considerations

### The Speed Challenge

A significant challenge identified was the mismatch between disinformation spread speed and verification time requirements. Silje identified this as their main operational challenge—stories spread extremely fast while verification work is inherently time-consuming.

This challenge has been exacerbated by AI technology, which has lowered barriers to creating and distributing disinformation at unprecedented scale and speed.

### Ethical Implementation of AI Tools

Surabhi from RNW Media raised questions about reconciling the use of tools like facial recognition with ethical journalism standards. The speakers demonstrated consensus on ethical boundaries, with Morten emphasizing practical guidelines such as limiting facial recognition use to public figures and ensuring personal information protection.

The conversation addressed compliance with regulations such as GDPR while maintaining editorial exemptions necessary for journalistic work, recognizing the tension between utilizing analytical tools and protecting privacy rights.

## Unresolved Challenges

### Hidden Disinformation Networks

An audience member highlighted the difficulty of tracking disinformation that spreads through private channels, targeted advertising, and ephemeral websites that disappear quickly. This represents a fundamental limitation of current fact-checking approaches, which primarily focus on publicly available content.

### Scaling Verification Efforts

The discussion highlighted the ongoing challenge of scaling verification efforts to match the volume and speed of AI-generated disinformation. While technological tools are becoming more sophisticated, verification still requires human judgment and time, while false information can be generated and distributed automatically.

## Areas of Consensus

Throughout the discussion, speakers demonstrated agreement on fundamental principles: collaboration is essential for effective fact-checking, technology offers both solutions and challenges, and education and training are crucial for building verification capabilities.

This consensus extended to ethical considerations, with speakers showing agreement on limiting the use of powerful AI tools when they might compromise privacy or ethical standards. All speakers emphasized the need for international cooperation, recognizing disinformation as a global challenge requiring coordinated responses.

## Conclusion

The discussion revealed both significant progress in combating disinformation and substantial remaining challenges. Speakers demonstrated that effective responses require collaboration across traditional competitive boundaries, sophisticated technological tools deployed within ethical frameworks, and community engagement strategies.

The conversation highlighted fundamental structural challenges including the speed mismatch between verification and disinformation spread, the difficulty of monitoring private disinformation networks, and the need to balance analytical tools with privacy considerations.

The strong consensus on core principles suggests the global fact-checking community has developed shared professional standards that could support more effective collaborative responses to what all speakers recognized as a global challenge requiring coordinated international action.

Olav Ostrem: Yes, it’s a privilege to have the opportunity to be giving this presentation to all of you. Yes, it’s a privilege to have the opportunity to be giving this presentation to all of you. Yes, it’s a privilege to have the opportunity to be giving this presentation to all of you. Yes, it’s a privilege to have the opportunity to be giving this presentation to all of you. At my side, I have my colleague Morten and I have Silje on the far right here. At my side, I have my colleague Morten and I have Silje on the far right here. She’s head of strategy and innovation. Hearing them diving into how to counter mis- and disinformation. Hearing them diving into how to counter mis- and disinformation. My name is Olav, I’m the news editor of Faktisk, which is Norway’s only fact-checking organisation. My name is Olav, I’m the news editor of Faktisk, which is Norway’s only fact-checking organisation. We are now 15 employees and we are part of two divisions. One is the technicals on fact-checks and verification. The other part is the media literacy department tank, or think in English, who is making educational material out of the same sort of material we are using for the fact-checks. who is making educational material out of the same sort of material we are using for the fact-checks. We’re going to address, as I said, disinformation, but first I have to take you into where we’re from, We’re going to address, as I said, disinformation, but first I have to take you into where we’re from, where Faktisk is from and how collaboration is a vital part of our history. where Faktisk is from and how collaboration is a vital part of our history. We were founded in 2017, just after the tornado called Fake News. It was after the start of the Russian aggression against Ukraine. It was after the first Trump election. It was a great need for finding a way to counter all of this misinformation being spread online. It was a great need for finding a way to counter all of this misinformation being spread online. In Norway, the solution was that the big media companies got together and found a way to do this together, making an own independent organisation called Faktisk and starting up there. As you can see, we were founded by and are still owned by the six big companies in Norway, As you can see, we were founded by and are still owned by the six big companies in Norway, which is now owned by Shipsted and Aller, and we have the two broadcasters, which is NRK and TV2, and we have two big media companies behind us that own a lot of regional and local papers. and we have two big media companies behind us that own a lot of regional and local papers. So where are we now? We want to do, I think, how to say the core mission that we’ve always been into, is to curate knowledge and share know-how and stay relevant. And how do we do it? Yeah, we are fact-checking and we are doing verifications, and we are also looking into the incidents when AI becomes a digital threat. And with that, we do fact-checking verification, publish it online, we have social media, and we have a TikTok account and newsletter, and at our best, we do this quick. We can make an article, a fact-check verification, and at the same time, our media literacy division, they make this into educational material that can be very useful for the teacher the next day in the classroom. This is when we are at our best. Then we do the debunking and pre-bunking all together. So how do we do this with very limited resources? We are only 15 people, so we need a little help from our friends. And with the friends, we have, I mean, like the big media ecosystem in Norway. And as I said, we are owned by the six big companies, so that means that not all of the media industry, but a large part of it are behind us and giving us support and backing. In addition to financing, we share ideas and we share know-how, and sometimes we visit them, they visit us, we can work together. And in this way, we can be stronger together. And at the same time, they are making most of our distribution, because it’s possible for them to republish our articles, and in that way, we get much more visibility. We get a big audience through our owners and through the rest of the Norwegian media. So this is how collaboration is so important, and we join our forces. Then a small organization like ours can still strengthen the methods and skills in this very important issue of our time. Just a few words on the development during these years. At the start, it was almost only fact-checking we did, and it was a lot of claims from the politicians. We’re still doing that. And at that time, like eight years ago, there was a lot of viral misinformation we also looked into. I mean, like, there was a lot of strange and funny webpages which had to be looked upon. There was a big change in 2020 because of the pandemics. Then almost all of our sources went into that, and fact-checking all the claims related to the debates on vaccine and what the authorities were to be doing. Afterwards, we had a Russian full-scale in Ukraine, and after that again, it was an energy crisis, and this occupied all of our strength almost. This was what we were doing. But the big change, I think, in the way we prioritize our journalism would be like the invasion in Ukraine because what we saw was a flood of images and videos, and the big medias, they didn’t know what videos and images that occurred on social media that were to be trusted. So we had to find a method and a way to verify all these images and videos. And the way we did it, or the Norwegian media did it, we sat together at our own verification desk, which was facilitated and administered by Faktisk, and it was staffed by journalists from all through Norway. So journalists that otherwise were from competing newspapers, they got together, found new methods, found new skills, and at the same time, they answered to this assignment on providing verified images and videos for the TV stations and the papers. And the third thing we made possible then was give education to all the journalists in how to develop this field, and they could bring that back to the organization they belonged to otherwise. So a lot of things happening, and Silje will later on tell you a bit more about that part. At the end, I’d just like to say that, of course, we have a lot of collaboration in Norway, but we also have collaboration outside, across the borders, and we work tight together with our Nordic colleagues, the Danish Tjekte, the Swedish Kjellkritikbyrån, and the Finnish Faktabari. And all of those, and we in Faktisk, we also take part in a Nordic hub of fact-checking organization, together with academic institutions and a tech company, which is called Nordisk, where also new ideas and methods are being developed. And we’re also part of an international network, IFCN, which is like 180 fact-checking organizations, and the European fact-checking standards network. So in that sense, we share the ideas, and we share the methods, and we share the tools. That is my bottom line. We’re better together.

Morten Langfeldt Dahlback Rapler: Thanks. So I’m going to talk a bit about how we actually get better by being together with other partners. I’m Morten. I’m the head of technology at Faktisk. So as Ola mentioned, back in 2017, we mostly fact-checked claims from politicians. And at that time, our tech suite looked like this. So this is our original toolbox. It’s transcriptions from public broadcasting with some entity recognition, so we could see what people were talking about when they were on the radio or on TV shows, and picking up on the claims that they made, so we could fact-check them. looked a bit into polling, so we had our own poll aggregator service. I’m not going to talk that much about that now. But times have changed quite significantly since 2017, and the ability of bad actors to create misinformation has become much more technologically sophisticated, and we’ve also seen that people consume much more audiovisual content online rather than text-based content. So back in 2017, we mainly worried about Facebook, which is a text-based platform, but now we have TikTok, we have Instagram, we have YouTube, we have all these platforms where people mostly share video, and sometimes long-form video too. So we need to update our toolbox, and we’ve done that in collaboration with our academic partners and our tech partners. So I’m going to give you a couple of brief examples, and then Celia will maybe tell you something more about how this actually works in practice. So the first example is this. So as you can see, these are Norwegian flags with boxes around them. The boxes are an object recognition algorithm that’s called YOLO. It means you only look once. This is a test case, so we tried to see how many non-Norwegian flags there were in the National Day Parade in Oslo. Every year, there is a debate in Norway about how many foreign flags there are in this parade, and the assumption seems to be that there is definitely some significant amount of them. So we used this object detection technology to actually look at the flags and try to verify if there were any foreign ones, and the answer was a very clear no. This was a myth. So we had to run through several hours of parade footage with this algorithm to actually get to this answer, something that would have been completely impossible just a few years ago. I think we counted around 80,000 flags, or flag instances, to be very technical about it, because the same flag can appear multiple times in the same video. We’ve also gone through TikTok videos. This one, I’m not sure if you can see. You cannot see. So here we used facial expression recognition because we wanted to see what the mood is like on Norwegian TikTok. So the box here actually looks at someone’s face, and it tries to estimate what emotion their facial expression signifies. So here, I’m not sure if it detects anything, but you can see it was actually quite instructive because we discovered that, one, people don’t really share a lot of substantial content on TikTok, and most people are happy. So that was pretty much contrary to our expectations. Here’s the algorithm, if you want to try it. It’s called FVR. It’s open source, so you can use it. I’m going to skip the next one because I can see that we are running a bit out of time. I’m going to advertise we also have a freedom of information platform that the journalists can use to get access to public records, or at least records that should be in public, through submitting FOIA requests to all sorts of municipalities, state organizations, and so on. I think there is at least 30 million documents in there, so it’s quite large. But that’s sort of the overarching technology stuff. I think it’s much more interesting for you to hear about how it’s used for verification work. So, Silja.

Silje Forsund: Thank you. My name is Silja. I’m the head of verification at Faktisk. And as Ola was saying earlier, this is a project organized under Faktisk that we started in the spring of 2022. And so, as you see from this image, this was posted by the former prime minister in Sweden, Carl Bildt. He shared this image on his Twitter account on the 26th of February in 2022. So this was two days after Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. And he wrote, there are photos that will be with us for a long time. And he was indeed right about that. When this image was verified, it turned out to be six years old. So it did not show two children and soldiers up against Russian soldiers in the full-scale invasion. And this exemplifies what the media and the society as well were up against because traditional reporting tools were not enough anymore. And social media was overflowing the front line footage. And some of it was authentic and some of it was manipulated. So, and with the restricted access on the ground for journalists, newsrooms, they relied increasingly on user-generated content for their news coverage. So the newsroom, they lacked the skills and the methods to verify content, and it became very urgent for everyone to be able to separate facts from fabrications. So competing national media in Norway, we got together and we established a method and a work process on how to try to separate facts from fabrications. And three years later, we now use it as a big part of our journalism to use verification, and we’ve trained a lot of Norwegian journalists. About 60 Norwegian journalists have been part of our newsroom and got training in it. And we also trained journalists all over the world, many of them living in exiles. So we’ve been training them, journalists from Gaza, Yemen, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan, many corners of the world. So let’s give an example of how we work when we verify content, mainly videos and images. This video that you see screenshots of on the screen, this was a video that surfaced on Russian telegram channels, and it was claiming to show a Norwegian soldier being killed in Ukraine, and he was wearing a Norwegian uniform. And the footage, it seemed authentic, and it seemed to have been shot with a GoPro camera, showing a Russian soldier throwing a grenade into a bunker where the Norwegian soldier was hit. And the video, it was spread with allegations of NATO’s involvement in the war in Ukraine, and dead Norwegian soldiers that fed the Russian narrative of NATO’s involvement in the war. But something was clearly off, and verifying the video and analyzing it frame by frame, we could map and see how sun and shades revealed inconsistencies and editing cuts, and we could document that the video, it was staged, and it did not in fact show or capture a Russian grenade killing a Norwegian soldier at all. It was clearly propaganda and disinformation. So this is an example of the work we do. This other example, this is from the early part of the war in Ukraine. At the beginning, it had been rumors that there had been established a filtering camp outside of Mariupol, the Russian-controlled Ukrainian city. And we wanted to look into it and see if we could find some kind of evidence to support these rumors and stories that we heard. So we examined satellite images from the area, and at the start of the war, we could not see any of the tents that were meant to be put up, but after a few months, we could clearly see, using the satellite images and comparing them, we could see that there had been put up about 20 blue tents. So by this, we use satellite images and open source intelligence to turn rumors into documented facts. And this other example is from Syria, where we also have used satellite images to document signs of mass graves in several places in Syria after the fall of the regime of Bashar al-Assad in December last year. And these satellite images documented how large trenches appeared around the time that thousands of Syrian people had been reported missing. So through satellite data, we could monitor the grave expansion and compare timelines and add facts to the reports from civilians on the ground. So, at Faktis we of course work to debunk misinformation and manipulated content from conflict areas around the world. And during the India-Pakistan conflict this spring, several videos emerged online and they were claiming to show Pakistan shooting down Indian fighter jets. Our analysis showed that clips were manipulated and they were from a military-themed video game. We tracked the source material, compared visual frame by frame and identified that none of the footage had any real-world connection. This case shows how visual content, whether it was intentional or not, can be misused and provoke an escalation between nuclear powers. Increasingly, our work is about exposing manipulation. We investigate content created by AI and video game simulations, as you saw, and also real images such as this, but connected with false claims. This example is from a famous image just a few weeks back, where it was claimed that the French president was accused of cocaine use after simply clearing away a napkin before a photo shoot on a train to Kiev. Stories such as this spread extremely fast and verifying content can be time-consuming. This is our main dilemma and challenge at the moment, and this is why we’re focusing on developing technical tools, such as the one Morten was telling you about with object detection with the Norwegian flags. These technical tools and methods are necessary for us to keep improving and develop in order to make verification faster and even more accurate. This is the main challenge that we’re up against at the moment, and it needs to be a global and joint force to tackle this, I believe.

Speaker: I will let Carla take over now. Thank you, Celia. I’m Carla. I’m from Rappler, a newsroom in the Philippines. As we saw from everything that’s been presented, this information is real and it’s happening here and now. Our goal really in tackling this is what do we do now and how do we continue the battle for truth and start it in a scale that matters to us all. First off, what is the cost of this information? It’s been reported that this information actually is costing us globally $78 billion every single year because of market manipulation, reputation risk, cyber crime, and everything that this information touches. It is designed to divide communities, distort reality, and ultimately destroy trust. The social cost for this is really immeasurable. The fact that we no longer have a shared reality is what we’re living through. Of course, the new entrant, a big entrant in accelerating everything, including this information, is AI. Now, the barrier to entry is very low, low cost, high scale in terms of production, producing, distributing, in a pace that we’ve never seen before. This is what we’re battling with in Rappler. As mentioned, we’re a Philippine independent newsroom headed and led by the courageous Maria Ressa, who’s right there. We’ve seen firsthand how this information has been weaponized to attack journalists, manipulate propaganda, and definitely destroy democracies. Ultimately, our question was, how do we make sure that we tackle disinformation or build resilience in a world where lies move faster than the truth? We’ve seen that this is not limited to just one tool, one newsroom, or even one solution, but it is meant to be a collective system that brings together the best of data, the most effective communities, and the right and impactful technology. Let’s start with data. It really is taking a look at how we fight back with it, because ultimately, you can’t fight what you can’t see. We are able to build out a data forensics company called NERV, where we expose different networks. Ultimately, how does this information travel across platforms, across networks, pages, bots, accounts? Because disinformation doesn’t just appear randomly, it is very much orchestrated. What you’re seeing here in this slide is actually our visual map of how one disinformation or crisis flows through the information ecosystem or platforms, whether it’s Facebook, TikTok, social media. What you’re seeing on the left is how the tendency is that for a piece of information to connect with various communities online splinters into niche communities. You would then be connected or be attracted to certain narratives, and then that’s what you tend to spread. Our ability to then map out where do the facts lie, where are the lies starting, and how do these lies spread, allow us to then connect to the networks who would have most influence to stop that same spread. Being able to then visualize this in a map is very important, because ultimately, the goal is to provide that kind of information and facts to a set of communities that are ready to act. Through MOVE.ph and Rapplern, we’ve been able to build out an effective network of civic engagers through various training, roadshows. Here’s a quick sample of what that looks like, where we bring together multilateral, multisectoral groups from youth leaders, local government units, and making sure that disinformation is a common enemy that we all need to be able to focus and fix. And a big part of the problem, a contributing factor, is technology. If internet or if technology is being used for criminal ends, there must be cooperation from platforms, telcos. I really appreciate these kinds of forums, because this will enable communities to be cyber safe. So let’s focus on educating on how to deal with the internet. If you really want to keep the discourse alive, you also need to keep a conversation with your local government leaders. So all this engagement has then allowed us to really collectively grow a movement within the Philippines. It’s called Facts First PH. This was started last 2022. And what makes it different and really powerful is that it is multisectoral, and everybody gets involved. So it’s over 140 units, and it is very difficult to bring together people, right? But the fact that we are battling through a common concern or crisis is what brings us together. So it’s not just about banding together, but making sure there’s a system where everybody gets to report, verify, check, and spread a piece of fake news or a piece of disinformation, and that’s all then collected. So why is this important? Because in this coalition, we then are able to piece together a network of truth tellers that then allows us to match where do the lies spread with where the facts should be placed. So here you’re seeing a network map of various Facts First partner communities, and how that then ripples out into their respective networks as well. So if lies spread a certain way, then we’re able to combat that by knowing where do they start, how are our audiences, our communities, responding to it, and what formats will they actually understand. So this way, we’re not just… Here’s a piece of news, this is fake, this is real, but in a language that they understand, in formats that they would actually bother to watch. So it’s knowing our communities, knowing what matters to them, and ultimately knowing how to engage with them better. And as we know, systems, broken systems at that, cannot be fixed overnight, so we built our own. Because the goal is to be able to reclaim the narrative from those that are spreading this information. So what you’re seeing here is Rappler Communities, powered by the Matrix Protocol. It is a safe space where everyone can actually jump in, join in, and have real connections direct with our journalists and editors, those who are also guardians of facts and truth. And how it works is, beyond just your typical news feed, you can actually then select which communities you want to be able to engage with online. Chat real time, always on, and then get to even chat with our AI, called Rai, that is trained on vetted articles and vetted facts from Rappler, through content and data. And this is how, if you’re visiting Rappler, you can then connect with Rai, ask it questions, verify yourself, if there’s any disinformation or lie that you come across, and it’ll provide you the response that is then connected to factual hard data. So it’s fact-based, it’s designed for civic engagement, it’s designed for you to be able to also spread the truth yourself to your respective communities. So ultimately, for us to be able to really address the issue of disinformation, it’s a long, hard road ahead, but we’ve seen that what has worked for us in Rappler is that really seeing how do we build out a network of truth, by understanding what the data shows, equipping citizens and communities to act with information that’s readily available, and also providing safe spaces for good, not just for profit. So it’s been a long journey, but we’re here to continue to battle for truth. Thank you.

Olav Ostrem: Thank you. So, questions? I’m not sure if there is a… Is there a mic? Here’s a mic. Oh, it seems to be working now, yeah.

Audience: Great. Yeah, thanks for the presentations, really interesting work. I’m Surabhi from RNW Media, we are a media development organization based in the Netherlands. I was just wondering about the tools that you mentioned, for instance, the facial recognition tool and some of the other AI tools that you’re using. How are you reconciling that with the ethical implications of using these tools in your work? Have there been discussions within the organization about the ethical, responsible implications of these tools? And I’m just interested in knowing how are you navigating some of those discussions, and if you have any practical insights on that.

Morten Langfeldt Dahlback Rapler: Oh, definitely. So we did have those discussions when we had this TikTok project, and one of the most important things for us was selecting only accounts that had a big public impact already. So we didn’t want to store facial expression information about normal private citizens. We selected only the most important influencers who have their face plastered everywhere anyway. We also didn’t publish, I think, almost none of the material anywhere else. As journalists, of course, we have the luxury of having an exemption from the GDPR, which means that we can store personal information as long as it’s for editorial purposes. But we’ve tried to be as careful as possible, especially both with people’s faces, but also with comments. That’s something else that we’ve stored and analyzed. And we’ve always tried to disaggregate the names of the people making the comments from the comment itself, because people can really expose their names, for example. So yeah, it’s usually on a per-project basis. We would have other considerations if we were looking into more, let’s say, random activity from non-public figures, for example.

Audience: Thank you very much for this presentation. I assume that the data that you showed about this information source is usually publicly observable websites. It actually will be visible by anyone. Now, I’m wondering if you also have a project to deal with the more hidden form of this information, especially the one that goes by way of personal targeting and delivery by way of ephemeral websites. So these websites will not be visible to anybody who knows what to do about it. And you will not be able to observe what it is. Of course, there could be ways to collaborate with the networks to enable people to report what they see. But it would actually take a bigger project. So I wonder if there’s anything going there. Yeah. So all of our work is based on publicly available data. And what we’ve observed is that they really do work in patterns. So while we’re able to map out various accounts and networks, it’s important to note that every account plays a role. And an account will then have their own respective private connections. And so if you’re able to then identify what is happening in the public space, what are the messages that are building up in certain clusters, understanding who would be the main influences or leaders or accounts in specific clusters, we can then connect that to potential private behavior as well. Because whatever you deal with publicly also would have an influence on how you spread it privately. So we take a look at patterns, we take a look at how the behavior is, as well as essentially the playbook of how messages spread. Then we are able to then track that out within private spaces as well.

Olav Ostrem: It seems that we have run out of time. So I think we could just take the question over here. Okay. Thank you for attention. Thank you, everyone. Thank you.

Agreement points

Collaboration is essential for effective fact-checking and combating disinformation

Speakers

– Olav Ostrem
– Speaker

Arguments

Small organizations with limited resources need collaboration with media ecosystem partners for support, financing, and distribution

Collaboration extends internationally through Nordic fact-checking networks and global organizations like IFCN

Multi-sectoral coalitions like Facts First PH with over 140 units can effectively combat disinformation through collective action

Summary

Both speakers emphasize that fighting disinformation requires collaborative approaches, whether through media partnerships, international networks, or multi-sectoral coalitions. They agree that no single organization can effectively combat disinformation alone.

Topics

Sociocultural | Development

Technology and AI present both opportunities and challenges in the disinformation landscape

Speakers

– Morten Langfeldt Dahlback Rapler
– Speaker

Arguments

Misinformation has evolved from simple text-based claims to sophisticated audiovisual content across multiple platforms

AI has lowered barriers to creating and distributing disinformation at unprecedented scale and speed

Summary

Both speakers acknowledge that technological advancement, particularly AI, has fundamentally changed the disinformation landscape by making it easier to create and distribute false content while also providing new tools for verification.

Topics

Cybersecurity | Sociocultural

Training and education are crucial for building verification capabilities

Speakers

– Olav Ostrem
– Silje Forsund
– Speaker

Arguments

Educational material can be created simultaneously with fact-checks for immediate classroom use

Training programs have equipped about 60 Norwegian journalists and journalists worldwide in verification methods

Building networks of civic engagers through training and roadshows creates effective community-based responses

Summary

All three speakers agree that education and training programs are fundamental to building capacity for fighting disinformation, whether for journalists, educators, or civic communities.

Topics

Development | Sociocultural

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers demonstrate how advanced technological tools can be used for verification work, from automated analysis to detailed manual examination of visual content.

Speakers

– Morten Langfeldt Dahlback Rapler
– Silje Forsund

Arguments

Object detection algorithms like YOLO can verify claims by analyzing large volumes of visual content, such as counting flags in parades

Frame-by-frame video analysis can reveal inconsistencies, editing cuts, and staging in propaganda content

Satellite imagery and open source intelligence can document evidence of conflict-related activities like filtering camps and mass graves

Topics

Sociocultural | Cybersecurity

Both acknowledge the importance of ethical considerations when using AI and facial recognition technologies in journalism, emphasizing the need for privacy protection and responsible implementation.

Speakers

– Morten Langfeldt Dahlback Rapler
– Audience

Arguments

Facial recognition tools should only be used on public figures with significant impact, not private citizens

Personal information should be disaggregated from analyzed content to protect individual privacy

Questions about responsible use of AI tools in journalism require ongoing ethical discussions

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Unexpected consensus

Ethical use of AI surveillance technologies in journalism

Speakers

– Morten Langfeldt Dahlback Rapler
– Audience

Arguments

Facial recognition tools should only be used on public figures with significant impact, not private citizens

Personal information should be disaggregated from analyzed content to protect individual privacy

Questions about responsible use of AI tools in journalism require ongoing ethical discussions

Explanation

It’s unexpected to see such strong consensus on limiting the use of powerful AI tools, especially when these tools could potentially enhance fact-checking capabilities. The speakers prioritize ethical considerations over technological possibilities, showing restraint in tool deployment.

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Global scope of disinformation requiring international cooperation

Speakers

– Olav Ostrem
– Silje Forsund
– Speaker

Arguments

Collaboration extends internationally through Nordic fact-checking networks and global organizations like IFCN

Training programs have equipped about 60 Norwegian journalists and journalists worldwide in verification methods

Multi-sectoral coalitions like Facts First PH with over 140 units can effectively combat disinformation through collective action

Explanation

Despite representing different organizations from different countries (Norway and Philippines), all speakers converge on the need for international cooperation and knowledge sharing, suggesting a mature understanding that disinformation is a global challenge requiring coordinated responses.

Topics

Development | Sociocultural

Overall assessment

Summary

The speakers demonstrate strong consensus on key principles: collaboration is essential, technology offers both solutions and challenges, education builds capacity, and ethical considerations must guide tool deployment. They agree on the global nature of disinformation and the need for coordinated international responses.

Consensus level

High level of consensus with significant implications for the field. The agreement suggests a maturing discipline with shared professional standards, ethical frameworks, and recognition of collective action needs. This consensus could facilitate better international cooperation, standardized training programs, and more effective collaborative responses to disinformation campaigns.

Different viewpoints

Unexpected differences

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion showed remarkable consensus among speakers with no direct disagreements identified. The main areas of variation were in approach and emphasis rather than fundamental disagreement.

Disagreement level

Very low disagreement level. The speakers presented complementary perspectives on fact-checking and disinformation combat, with differences mainly in focus areas (Norwegian collaborative model vs. Philippine community engagement vs. technical tools) rather than conflicting viewpoints. The audience questions revealed some tension around ethical implementation of AI tools and the scope of verification challenges, but these were more about refining approaches than fundamental disagreements. This high level of consensus suggests strong professional alignment in the fact-checking community, though it may also indicate that more contentious aspects of the field were not deeply explored in this particular forum.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers demonstrate how advanced technological tools can be used for verification work, from automated analysis to detailed manual examination of visual content.

Speakers

– Morten Langfeldt Dahlback Rapler
– Silje Forsund

Arguments

Object detection algorithms like YOLO can verify claims by analyzing large volumes of visual content, such as counting flags in parades

Frame-by-frame video analysis can reveal inconsistencies, editing cuts, and staging in propaganda content

Satellite imagery and open source intelligence can document evidence of conflict-related activities like filtering camps and mass graves

Topics

Sociocultural | Cybersecurity

Both acknowledge the importance of ethical considerations when using AI and facial recognition technologies in journalism, emphasizing the need for privacy protection and responsible implementation.

Speakers

– Morten Langfeldt Dahlback Rapler
– Audience

Arguments

Facial recognition tools should only be used on public figures with significant impact, not private citizens

Personal information should be disaggregated from analyzed content to protect individual privacy

Questions about responsible use of AI tools in journalism require ongoing ethical discussions

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Key takeaways

Collaborative approaches are essential for effective fact-checking, as demonstrated by Faktisk’s founding by six major Norwegian media companies and international partnerships

Technology tools like object detection algorithms, facial expression recognition, and satellite imagery analysis are crucial for modern verification work, especially for audiovisual content

Misinformation has evolved significantly since 2017, moving from simple text-based claims to sophisticated AI-generated content that spreads faster and at greater scale

Community engagement and education are vital components of combating disinformation, requiring multi-sectoral coalitions and training programs for both journalists and citizens

The economic and social costs of disinformation are substantial, with $78 billion in annual global costs and the destruction of shared reality and trust

Speed is a critical challenge in verification work – lies spread faster than fact-checkers can debunk them, necessitating faster technical tools and methods

Building safe digital spaces with AI trained on verified content can provide real-time fact-checking capabilities for communities

Resolutions and action items

Continue developing technical tools to make verification faster and more accurate

Expand training programs for journalists worldwide, particularly those in conflict zones and exile

Maintain and grow multi-sectoral coalitions like Facts First PH to create networks of truth-tellers

Develop AI-powered tools trained on vetted content to provide real-time fact-checking assistance

Continue international collaboration through Nordic networks and global organizations like IFCN

Unresolved issues

How to effectively track and combat ephemeral and privately targeted disinformation that isn’t publicly observable

Balancing the use of AI and facial recognition tools with ethical considerations and privacy protection

Scaling verification efforts to match the speed and volume of AI-generated disinformation

Addressing the fundamental challenge that verification is time-consuming while false information spreads extremely fast

Determining best practices for responsible use of surveillance and recognition technologies in journalism

Suggested compromises

Using facial recognition technology only on public figures with significant impact rather than private citizens

Disaggregating personal information from analyzed content to protect individual privacy while maintaining editorial exemptions under GDPR

Focusing on publicly observable patterns to infer private disinformation behavior rather than directly accessing private communications

Balancing the need for fast verification with thorough ethical considerations on a per-project basis

We’re better together… So how do we do this with very limited resources? We are only 15 people, so we need a little help from our friends.

Speaker

Olav Ostrem

Reason

This comment crystallizes a fundamental insight about combating disinformation – that it cannot be effectively addressed by isolated organizations but requires collaborative ecosystems. It challenges the traditional competitive model of journalism and proposes cooperation as a survival strategy.

Impact

This comment established the central theme of collaboration that ran throughout the entire presentation. It shifted the discussion from individual organizational capabilities to systemic approaches, setting up the framework for all subsequent examples of cross-border cooperation, shared verification desks, and multi-stakeholder coalitions.

The big change, I think, in the way we prioritize our journalism would be like the invasion in Ukraine because what we saw was a flood of images and videos, and the big medias, they didn’t know what videos and images that occurred on social media that were to be trusted.

Speaker

Olav Ostrem

Reason

This observation identifies a pivotal moment where traditional journalism had to fundamentally adapt its methods. It highlights how geopolitical events can accelerate technological and methodological evolution in media, forcing newsrooms to develop entirely new skill sets.

Impact

This comment marked a transition in the presentation from discussing general fact-checking to specialized verification techniques. It introduced the concept of real-time verification under crisis conditions and led directly to the technical demonstrations and case studies that followed.

You can’t fight what you can’t see… disinformation doesn’t just appear randomly, it is very much orchestrated.

Speaker

Carla (Rappler)

Reason

This insight reframes disinformation from random falsehoods to systematic, strategic operations. It introduces the concept of disinformation as warfare that requires intelligence-gathering approaches rather than just fact-checking responses.

Impact

This comment shifted the discussion toward a more sophisticated understanding of disinformation as organized campaigns. It introduced the need for network analysis and data forensics, leading to the presentation of visual mapping tools and the concept of fighting networks with networks.

If lies spread a certain way, then we’re able to combat that by knowing where do they start, how are our audiences, our communities, responding to it, and what formats will they actually understand.

Speaker

Carla (Rappler)

Reason

This comment reveals a strategic insight about matching counter-narratives to the specific communication patterns and preferences of target communities. It moves beyond simply debunking to understanding audience psychology and communication effectiveness.

Impact

This observation elevated the discussion from technical verification methods to strategic communication theory. It introduced the concept of community-specific responses and led to the presentation of the Facts First PH coalition model, showing how understanding audience behavior can inform counter-disinformation strategies.

How are you reconciling that with the ethical implications of using these tools in your work? Have there been discussions within the organization about the ethical, responsible implications of these tools?

Speaker

Surabhi (Audience)

Reason

This question introduced a critical tension in the discussion – the ethical implications of using AI and surveillance technologies to combat disinformation. It challenged the presenters to consider whether the means justify the ends.

Impact

This question forced a shift from celebrating technological capabilities to examining their ethical boundaries. It introduced complexity to the narrative and prompted a discussion about GDPR compliance, consent, and the responsibilities that come with powerful verification tools. It grounded the technical discussion in real-world ethical considerations.

Overall assessment

These key comments transformed what could have been a straightforward presentation about fact-checking tools into a nuanced discussion about the systemic nature of disinformation warfare. The progression moved from individual organizational challenges to collaborative solutions, then to sophisticated network-based approaches, and finally to ethical considerations. The comments collectively established that combating disinformation requires not just better technology, but fundamental changes in how media organizations work together, understand their adversaries, and engage with communities – all while maintaining ethical standards. The discussion evolved from reactive fact-checking to proactive, strategic, and ethically-conscious information warfare.

How are you reconciling the use of AI tools like facial recognition with ethical implications in your work?

Speaker

Surabhi from RNW Media

Explanation

This addresses the important ethical considerations around using AI surveillance and analysis tools in journalism, particularly regarding privacy and responsible use of personal data

Do you have projects to deal with hidden forms of disinformation, especially those delivered through personal targeting and ephemeral websites that are not publicly observable?

Speaker

Audience member (unnamed)

Explanation

This highlights a significant gap in current fact-checking capabilities – the inability to monitor and counter disinformation that spreads through private channels, targeted advertising, or temporary websites that disappear quickly

How to make verification faster while maintaining accuracy in the face of rapidly spreading disinformation

Speaker

Silje Forsund

Explanation

This was identified as the main challenge they face – stories spread extremely fast while verification is time-consuming, creating a fundamental mismatch in response times

How to scale truth-telling networks to match the scale and speed of disinformation spread

Speaker

Carla from Rappler

Explanation

This addresses the need to build systematic approaches that can compete with the orchestrated nature of disinformation campaigns across multiple platforms and communities

Summary

This discussion, hosted by the Freedom Online Coalition at the Internet Governance Forum, focused on how technical standards can shape connectivity and digital inclusion, particularly examining barriers to participation in global standard-setting processes. The panel brought together experts from government, civil society, academia, and the private sector to explore how technical standardization can better align with human rights principles and contribute to bridging the digital divide.

Divine Agbeti from Ghana’s Cybersecurity Authority highlighted how open and interoperable standards have enabled financial inclusion across Africa, citing mobile money applications that allowed 80% of Ghana’s adult population to access digital financial services. Natalie Turkova emphasized that technical standards, while seeming abstract, directly affect how people connect and communicate online, yet end-users are typically excluded from standard-setting discussions due to barriers like lack of awareness, membership fees, technical language, and closed-door processes.

Stephanie Borg Psaila presented research mapping specific barriers across different standard-setting bodies like ITU, IETF, and ICANN, noting issues ranging from prohibitive membership costs to language limitations and geographic accessibility of meetings. Rose Payne discussed the critical role of standards in securing undersea cable infrastructure, which carries 95-99% of transnational data, while highlighting the disconnect between technical and geopolitical approaches to cable governance.

Alex Walden from Google emphasized the private sector’s role in investing in connectivity infrastructure while advocating for human rights-based approaches and inclusive stakeholder participation. However, audience members from the technical community challenged the panel’s framing, arguing that the distinction between “technical community” and “civil society” creates false barriers and that standard-setting processes are more open than portrayed. The discussion concluded with three main takeaways: addressing various participation barriers, building capacity across stakeholder groups, and grounding all discussions in international human rights law to ensure meaningful inclusion in technical standard-setting processes.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Barriers to Inclusive Participation in Technical Standards Setting**: The discussion extensively covered obstacles preventing diverse stakeholder engagement, including high membership fees, language barriers (predominantly English-only processes), lack of awareness about ongoing discussions, and technical jargon that intimidates non-technical participants. These barriers particularly affect civil society organizations, end-users, and participants from the Global South.

– **The Critical Role of Technical Standards in Bridging Digital Divides**: Panelists highlighted how open and interoperable standards enable connectivity and inclusion, with concrete examples like mobile money systems in Ghana and across Africa (M-PESA) that brought financial services to previously unbanked populations, demonstrating standards’ real-world impact on digital inclusion.

– **Human Rights Integration in Technical Standards Development**: The conversation emphasized the need to align technical standardization with international human rights law from the outset of development processes, rather than attempting to address rights concerns after standards are already established. The Freedom Online Coalition’s 2024 joint statement was referenced as a framework for this alignment.

– **Infrastructure Security and International Cooperation**: Significant focus was placed on subsea cables as critical infrastructure carrying 95-99% of transnational data, discussing the importance of technical standards for their security and reliability, while acknowledging the limitations of technical solutions in addressing geopolitical threats and the need for international legal frameworks.

– **Bridging Communication Gaps Between Stakeholder Communities**: The discussion revealed tensions between different communities (technical experts, civil society, government, private sector) and the need for better translation of technical concepts to end-users, as well as the importance of recognizing that technical experts can also be civil society members who care about human rights impacts.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to explore how technical standards can be made more inclusive, transparent, and aligned with human rights principles to bridge digital divides and ensure equitable access to digital services globally. The session sought to identify concrete strategies for improving stakeholder participation in standards-setting processes and examine how these standards impact connectivity, security, and inclusion, particularly for underserved communities.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion began with a collaborative and constructive tone, with panelists building on each other’s points and offering practical solutions to identified problems. However, the tone shifted notably during the Q&A portion when audience members from the technical community expressed disappointment and frustration with what they perceived as oversimplified characterizations of standards bodies and an “us versus them” mentality between technical and civil society communities. The panelists responded diplomatically to these criticisms, acknowledging the feedback while defending their work to bridge divides. Despite this tension, the session concluded on a constructive note with actionable takeaways and a commitment to continued dialogue.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Laura O Brien** – Senior International Counsel at Access Now, session moderator

– **Rasmus Lumi** – Director General, Department of International Organizations and Human Rights, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Estonia

– **Divine Agbeti** – Director General of Cybersecurity Authority of Ghana

– **Stephanie Borg Psaila** – Director for Digital Policy of Diplo Foundation

– **Natalie Turkova** – At-Large Advisory Committee ICANN and Founder and Chair of IGF CETSEA

– **Alex Walden** – Global Head of Human Rights, Google

– **Rose Payne** – Policy and Advocacy Lead from Global Partners Digital

– **Audience** – Multiple audience members who asked questions during Q&A

**Additional speakers:**

– **Israel Rosas** – Internet Society representative who spoke during the Q&A session

– **Harold** (last name not provided) – Audience member who identified as a technologist and civil society member, criticized the panel composition

– **Colin Perkins** – University of Glasgow, former IEB member and long-time IETF participant

# Technical Standards and Digital Inclusion: Bridging Participation Gaps in Global Standard-Setting Processes

## Executive Summary

This discussion, hosted by the Freedom Online Coalition at the Internet Governance Forum, examined how technical standards shape connectivity and digital inclusion, focusing on barriers to diverse stakeholder participation in global standard-setting processes. The panel brought together representatives from government, civil society, academia, and the private sector to explore strategies for aligning technical standardisation with human rights principles.

The session revealed both consensus on fundamental challenges and notable disagreements regarding the characterisation of barriers between technical and civil society communities. While panellists agreed on the importance of inclusive participation, the discussion was challenged by audience members from the technical community who questioned the panel’s framing and composition.

## Opening Framework and Context

Laura O’Brien, Senior International Counsel at Access Now and session moderator, established the discussion’s foundation by referencing the Freedom Online Coalition’s 2024 joint statement on technical standards and human rights. This framework positioned technical standards as governance instruments that embed values and directly impact human rights, connectivity, and digital inclusion.

Rasmus Lumi, Director General of Estonia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs Department of International Organizations and Human Rights, provided opening remarks establishing the central challenge: “These standards are the backbone of global connectivity… But this infrastructure is only as strong and as just as the processes behind it. Too often, standard-setting bodies… operate without sufficient input from the global south, from the civil society, or marginalised communities.”

## Panel Presentations

### Real-World Impact of Standards

Divine Agbeti, Director General of Ghana’s Cybersecurity Authority, provided concrete examples of how technical standards enable digital inclusion. He highlighted that open and interoperable standards enabled mobile money applications that brought 80% of Ghana’s adult population into digital financial services. He shared a personal example of being able to transfer money from Norway to his mother in Ghana and between different account types, demonstrating practical connectivity benefits.

Agbeti emphasized that these standards enabled local adaptation, including support for African languages in digital platforms, showing how technical standardisation contributes to both financial and cultural inclusion.

### Mapping Barriers to Participation

Natalie Turkova, representing ICANN’s At-Large Advisory Committee and founder of IGF CETSEA, analyzed how technical standards directly affect how people connect and communicate online. Drawing on her background in psychology and media studies, she described her gradual entry into the technical field and identified key barriers excluding end-users from standard-setting:

– Lack of awareness about ongoing standards discussions

– Financial barriers preventing civil society participation

– Technical language complexity creating accessibility challenges

– Closed-door processes without transparent public engagement

Stephanie Borg Psaila, Director for Digital Policy at Diplo Foundation, presented research from the CADE project mapping specific barriers across different standard-setting bodies including ITU, IETF, and ICANN. She noted that barriers vary significantly between organisations and operate on multiple levels, including language barriers that exclude both non-native English speakers and regular users intimidated by technical complexity.

### Critical Infrastructure Challenges

Rose Payne, Policy and Advocacy Lead from Global Partners Digital, focused on subsea cables carrying 95% to 99% of transnational data. Drawing on research from an Internet Society fellowship, she explained how technical standards are vital for cable security and reliability but have limitations when facing malicious actors and deliberate cable cutting.

Payne identified a disconnect between how governments approach subsea cables as geopolitical challenges and how technical communities view geopolitical considerations. She noted that international legal frameworks like UNCLOS require updating for modern cable protection needs.

### Private Sector Perspectives

Alex Walden, Global Head of Human Rights at Google, articulated the private sector’s role in both investing in connectivity infrastructure and advocating for inclusive stakeholder participation. He emphasized that companies should implement human rights frameworks like the UN Guiding Principles throughout standards development and use their access to advocate for civil society inclusion.

## Q&A Discussion and Critical Feedback

The discussion took a significant turn when Harold, an audience member identifying as both a technologist and civil society member, challenged the panel’s approach. He expressed disappointment that a panel about technical standards “did not include a single person who actually works with technical standards.”

Harold argued against the distinction between technical community and civil society, stating: “So this false distinction between the technical community that doesn’t care and the civil society that cares about all the right things but happens to not understand this is false.” He contended that technologists are also part of civil society and care about human rights impacts.

Colin Perkins from the University of Glasgow, a former IESG member and IETF participant, reinforced this critique by expressing concern about “grouping together the various standards bodies and acting as if they all behave somewhat the same.” He encouraged more focused criticism that would be actionable for people developing standards.

The panellists responded diplomatically while defending their work. Rose Payne acknowledged the feedback, emphasizing the need for translation between technical and policy communities. Natalie Turkova accepted the criticism constructively, noting the importance of bidirectional capacity building between civil society and technical communities.

## Solutions and Recommendations

Despite tensions, the discussion produced concrete recommendations:

**Institutional Reforms:**

– Create dedicated seats for end-user advocates and human rights experts in standards bodies

– Implement graduated membership fee structures for civil society organisations

– Provide real-time interpretation in multiple languages

**Accessibility Improvements:**

– Enable virtual participation and hybrid modalities

– Distribute meeting locations strategically to avoid excluding developing region participants

– Form youth panels and include vulnerable groups in standards discussions

**Collaboration Opportunities:**

Israel Rosas from the Internet Society offered to strengthen cooperation with the Freedom Online Coalition for ITU sector conferences, including WTDC and plenipotentiary conferences.

## Main Takeaways

Laura O’Brien concluded the discussion with three main takeaways:

1. **Addressing Diverse Participation Barriers**: Recognition that barriers are multifaceted, requiring targeted solutions addressing financial, linguistic, geographic, and procedural obstacles.

2. **Building Capacity Across Stakeholder Groups**: Acknowledgment that effective inclusion requires mutual capacity building rather than one-directional advocacy.

3. **Grounding Discussions in International Human Rights Law**: Consensus that human rights frameworks should guide technical standards development from the outset.

## Conclusion

This discussion highlighted both the challenges and possibilities in making technical standard-setting more inclusive and rights-respecting. While significant disagreements emerged regarding the characterisation of barriers and appropriate approaches, the session demonstrated the importance of including actual standards practitioners alongside civil society advocates, government representatives, and private sector actors in these conversations.

The evolution from initial presentations through critical interventions to collaborative problem-solving illustrated the complexity of multi-stakeholder approaches to technical governance. The session established a foundation for continued dialogue while revealing the need for more nuanced understanding of how different standards bodies operate and how various stakeholder communities can contribute expertise within human rights frameworks.

Laura O Brien: the IGF, we’re very grateful for you all for joining on this very early time start, to the Freedom Online Coalition’s event on how technical standards can shape connectivity and inclusion. My name is Laura O’Brien, I’m Senior International Counsel at Access Now, and I’ll be the moderator for the session today, and I’m joined by an esteemed group of panelists who are very expert on this topic. To start us off today, I will hand the floor over to Rasmus Lumi, Director General, Department of International Organizations and Human Rights, from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Estonia, to do welcoming remarks. Over to you, Rasmus.

Rasmus Lumi: Thank you very much, and welcome everyone to this morning session here, which addresses a critical yet often overlooked pillar of our digital world, which is the technical standards. These standards are the backbone of global connectivity, enabling data to move seamlessly across borders, ensuring the interoperability of our networks, and supporting the expansion of affordable digital services. From undersea cables to data transmission protocols, standards underpin the various systems that make the internet work. But this infrastructure is only as strong and as just as the processes behind it. Too often, standard-setting bodies like ITU, IETF, and others operate without sufficient input from the global south, from the civil society, or marginalized communities. This lack of inclusivity risks reinforcing the digital divide, and leaving critical voices out of decisions that shape our joint future. We need open, transparent, and multi-stakeholder models for setting standards, too. Models that reflect the full diversity of the global digital community. In its joint statement of 2024, the Freedom Online Coalition, which Estonia is leading this year, has emphasized the importance of a rights-based, inclusive approach to digital policy. And at the same time, Estonia’s own leadership in digital governance shows what’s possible when innovation is paired with openness and accountability. As we navigate complex issues, cybersecurity, infrastructure, resilience, emerging technologies like quantum communications, we must ensure that standards evolve, not just to meet technical needs, but to align with broader goals like human rights, sustainable development, and global cooperation. Let’s use this space today to explore how we can make standard-setting more equitable, more collaborative, and more future-ready. By doing so, we can help build a digital ecosystem that is not only connected, but also inclusive, secure, and truly global. Thank you.

Laura O’Brien: Thank you very much, Rasmus. Our session today will delve into how open and interoperable standards can bridge digital divides, enhance connectivity, and ensure affordable access to vital digital services in underserved regions. We’ll be focusing on the critical role of standards in global communication infrastructure, such as undersea cables, data transmission, network compatibility, and cybersecurity. We will explore how emerging technologies demand adaptive, resilient frameworks. Despite their crucial impact, international standing-setting bodies such as the ITU, IETF, IEEE, W3C, frequently operate with limited stakeholder engagement. Our discussion today will highlight the barriers to inclusive participation and propose concrete strategies to foster greater transparency, accessibility, and representation. We will also examine how aligning technical standardization with human rights, digital inclusion, and the sustainable development goals can support key WSIS action lines, driving a more equitable and secure digital future. Through expert insights and collaborative dialogue, this panel aims to chart actionable pathways towards making standard-setting processes more open, collective, and representative, building a global digital ecosystem that works for everyone. In terms of the format, we’ll do one round of questions from the panelists, and then we’ll open the discussion for more of a Q&A from you all. We’ll then conclude with the three main takeaways from this session and any other closing remarks from the panelists here today. I’d like to start off by introducing our esteemed panel. First, to my right, I have Mr. Devine Abegti, and I apologize for any mispronunciation of names, the Director General of Cybersecurity Authority of Ghana. Pleasure to have you. I also have Stephanie Vorge-Sila, Director for Digital Policy of Diplo Foundation. Great to have you here. And then immediate left, I have Natalie Turkova, At-Large Advisory Committee ICANN and Founder and Chair of IGF CETSEA. And then on my very far right, Alex Walden, Global Head of Human Rights, Google. And finally, but last but not least, Rose Payne, Policy and Advocacy Lead from Global Partners Digital. So I think we’ll just dive right into it with my first question to Mr. Devine. How can open and interoperable technical standards help bridge the digital divide, particularly in underserved regions and among marginalized communities?

Divine Agbeti: Thank you very much. Actually, I’m honored to represent Ghana at this important roundtable on the role of technical standards in shaping a more inclusive, secure, and interoperable digital future. As a nation at the heart of Africa’s digital transformation journey, Ghana sees technical standards as governance instruments that impact rights, inclusion, and sustainable development. So firstly, open and interoperable technical standards are foundational to bridging the digital divide. They lower the cost of connectivity and technology adoption, especially in underserved communities. And we have seen this a lot throughout the country, and I’ll come to that, especially in our financial inclusion activities. This competition, by allowing multiple vendors to interoperate, reducing locking and also promoting affordability in that aspect, and it also enables local innovation and adaptation, such as African language support in mobile applications and digital platforms. So for some time now, in our financial institutions in Ghana, many years ago, we only had the traditional banks, for example, and that cuts away about 80 percent of the population who were peasant farmers, market women, and tradesmen who never had access to bank accounts or never thought there’s a need for that. But then the incident of technologies and interoperability came in, and locally we’re able to develop mobile applications and introduce what we call the mobile money applications. And interestingly, it’s not only in Ghana, it’s across the continent. So when you go even to East Africa, you have M-Pesa, which is there, and we work with the mobile networks to establish this. In that aspect, everyone is able to put in a smaller quote and they’re able to transfer money. You can walk to a vendor and then put money into your own mobile wallet, and also transfer money to people across the country. So, as a result, especially in mobile money, it has enabled over 80 percent of the adult population to access basic digital financial services. And by avoiding the vendor proprietary limitations, interoperability has become. driver of the financial inclusion in Ghana and today I can gladly say that even me in person I don’t see the need to walk into a bank. I sit right here in Norway and I’m able to transfer money to my mother who is right in the village and also be able to transfer from the mobile wallet account to my brother’s bank account no matter where he is. So these are the way technical standards can help support digital inclusion. Thank you very much. It’s very

Laura O Brien: helpful to have the perspective not only from Ghana but to see the regional and bringing in the financial institutions. That’s very, very helpful to kick us off on this discussion today. My next question is for Natalie. What are the main barriers to inclusive participation in global standard-setting processes, and how can these be addressed to ensure more diverse

Natalie Turkova: stakeholder engagement? Thank you so much. So if I would look at this for the lens of someone who is focusing on end-users within the various roles that I have in the community and focusing on the interest of the end-users, well I would say it’s very important to mention that these standards, technical standards might sound distant or very abstract to many of these people but they actually do shape the way we all connect, the way we are all online, we communicate and also access all the opportunity that we have. So this is very important to start with so that standards really do affect all of us, everyone, but the everyone isn’t usually in the room when everything is being said and done and talked about. So historically we can see that technical standard setting has been mainly let’s say motivated and being done by engineers, industry, government agencies and so environments that are just not traditionally open or even accessible even if you really want to for everyday users or just public interest advocates and we can just talk about the main barriers right but I would say the main thing is of course the lack of awareness because typically you’re not invited, there’s no advertisement where all these discussions are being held so there’s no increased participation or opportunities for the end-user communities and much of the work is just being done behind a closed door and of course once something goes wrong then we start to take these discussions again as an open thing, try to resolve what was being done wrongly however then of course it’s harder to somehow change it so there is now the growing recognition how the standards are just not neutral and they can just embed values or affect human rights in a way that we just don’t think about because we don’t even invite these people who can pinpoint and tell us in advance that well this is actually not the right decision, it’s not the right way to go but then once this is all being said and done it’s just way too complicated to go back and change it so definitely if I want to be positive about this and I want to not just to make the points of the negative things in order to change and maybe overcome these barriers I would suggest strongly that we try and do our maximum to have all these important conversations and be more open to different stakeholders back when we are having all these initial discussions so that also the process is much smoother and of course eventually cheaper so to provide some space and open seats for those who advocate for end-users who know well the realm of human rights and can really help us overcome these obstacles at the very beginning. These can be observing roles or specifically design seats for these type of people and stakeholders and then of course all these processes tend to be let’s say very technical so I just want to mention the language barrier we don’t usually think about so me mainly in my day job apart from all this which I love to do, I’m an academic and I know that sometimes we forget that the language we use can create this big barrier to the normal, normal I don’t like to use the word but like the regular end-user, my grandma and you know I also want her to understand what is being done, why these things look the way they look, how come these findings can actually affect her in her everyday life even though it doesn’t seem possible and so that also being able to translate what is being discussed on also the technical standard setting level to everyday end-users is very crucial otherwise even if we invite them but they’re intimidated because they just don’t understand, they don’t want to feel just dumb and they should not be in the room because they’re not engineers then eventually even if we open these seats they will just not come so also take a step back and try to be more open, more

Laura O Brien: inclusive by design as we as we discuss all these things. Thank you so much. Yes thank you Natalie, I think that was helpful to get kind of more of the historic perspective and then also highlighting some of the main barriers such as the lack of awareness, the fact that these settings are very strongly technical and the need to center and advocate for the end-users so I really appreciated that. Perhaps I could piggyback off a little bit more on this what could be the solutions. I know you offered a little bit of perspective on that in terms of the observing rules but to inclusive participation in global standard processes and how can we address these to ensure more diverse stakeholder engagement. Thank you so much so of course apart from the dedicated

Natalie Turkova: seats or specific roles that we can set up for them then another thing is that usually to be part of such communities or just the committees themselves sometimes you do have to pay a certain fee like a membership fee to even enter the environment and be able to meaningfully participate so of course if there is a financial barrier as well this should be something I would suggest we reconsider especially for those from civil society and that usually do face the barriers when it comes to finances and this is usually the main issue so of course I would I would also advocate for this thing and then focusing on also some form of vulnerable end-users such as the youth as well we can see in many organizations they are now forming youth panels also bringing these perspectives of the generation that will be affected by all the standards that we just adapt now these days so also bringing these people to the same room and trying to discuss with them what they see as challenging or maybe they already have some some fears and sometimes I when I have these conversations with young people or vulnerable groups of end-users such as people with disabilities and then of course all these groups can merge right we tend to forget that so we can even have young people with disabilities and or people from regions where connectivity is just a real issue and these people have some additional obstacles additional barriers so just bringing them in without creating again the barrier of language the barrier of membership fees and and all these that could really help then of course just being able to promote when these things are happening also maybe enable some form of virtual participation sometimes we can see that once let’s say a first draft is being adopted then it can be open for public comments or for comments from all these that could be just in these specific roles seated at the table so that could be something that could be very helpful eventually and then of course just overall raise some awareness and try and bridge the sphere of very technical and sometimes very hard to grasp documents to the end-users when it comes to explaining what does it mean how these things can actually affect them providing example so focusing more on the knowledge enhancements well I think all these together in a very naive situation in a utopian perspective that would be the ideal recipe to overcome some of the obstacles that we see today

Laura O Brien: yes thank you Natalie I appreciate how you took the focus more broadly on the end-users and narrowed it down to you know the youth persons with disabilities looking more about the vulnerability aspects and of course we’re all you know facing you know many barriers in terms of access to processes from a financial perspective but also I think there’s ways of overcoming that and I appreciate your option on the virtual participation you know we’ve seen that work really well in different hybrid modalities and it’s good way to make sure that we’re engaging with stakeholders from all over and to and to bring them into these processes so thank you next I’ll turn over to Stephanie in what ways can technical standardization and maybe with respect to digital technologies communication infrastructure data transmission network compatibility and security which is quite a bit be better aligned with international human rights law and contribute to digital inclusion and advance the sustainable development goals.

Stephanie Borg Psaila: Thank you, Laura. I will answer the question actually by rewording it. So I would say that technical standardization can contribute to digital inclusion and advancing the SDGs by being better aligned to international human rights law. So I’ve turned that a little bit around. And building on what Divine said, there are multiple everyday examples of how technical standards are bridging the digital divide. Divine mentioned the M-PESA and the financial related solutions. There’s the Aadhaar in India, which also is a very similar example. So the Aadhaar has enabled millions to access banking and social welfare. And through the Know Your Customer, the APA standard, it has reduced the onboarding costs for financial services. Another example is the use of TV white space standards in some countries in Africa. And that has enabled broadband delivery to rural areas using the unused spectrum. And another example, building also on what Natalie has said, it’s accessibility standards. So for instance, the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines that have made web content more inclusive for persons with disabilities. I’m just taking three examples, but there are many, many, many more. But obviously, we need to ensure that these technical standards are aligned with human rights law. And I will be stating the obvious, so standards should not enable surveillance, exclusion, data misuse, etc. And to prevent these harms, the discussion needs to take place from the outset. So I would say that that is one of the key points to make. If the discussion does not take place on the outset, as Natalie said, then it’s very difficult to solve. I’m also reflecting a little bit on what Natalie just said regarding the solutions. Diplo Foundation, we’re the lead partner in a project, it’s called CAID, Civil Alliances for Digital Empowerment. And one of the things that we’ve done is we’ve mapped the barriers for inclusion, for participation, focusing on civil society from the global majority. But we went a little bit deeper in the sense that we looked at some of the main standardization fora, and we said, all right, in each of these fora, what are the specific barriers? So we went a little bit granular to identify, for instance, what are the issues at the ITU? What are the issues at the ITF, at ICANN? Some of the issues are the same. Some are quite specific to these fora. So what we really believe and are working on is for there to be finally some structural changes coming from the top that will finally solve issues for civil society participation. And you mentioned the membership fees. It’s a non-starter for CSOs, right? So how can we even begin to say that we need to hear civil society voices when the door is shut for civil society? So certain barriers are literally, they’re a non-starter for CSOs, let alone being able to speak the same language, understand, etc. But what we’re also saying is that we’re trying not to approach it in a, let’s say, naive way. So there are aspects that civil society need also to look at to be able to, let’s say, help themselves, help their cause. And one of the issues that we are working on, one of the aspects is on helping civil society, helping end users, helping communities understand why they need to be in the room. And these are the examples I mentioned, the examples Divine mentioned. These are the everyday things that matter, right? So CSOs, civil society organizations, they also need to be made aware that their contribution is essential because what is being decided and what is being developed and later implemented in some of these spaces that we’re mentioning affect them directly on an everyday level. So I’ll stop there.

Laura O Brien: Thank you, Laura. Yes, thank you very much, Stephanie. That was very helpful and I think, if you can, maybe elaborate more on some of the issues that you mentioned specifically within the ITU, within IETF, would you be able to do that? Yes, of course. So we have the mapping study

Stephanie Borg Psaila: published on the CAID website, so I’ll be happy to share the URL after the session where we have a CAID booth here. Essentially, there are issues that are quite similar, right? But for instance, for the ITU, there’s the famous membership cost, right? You have to be a sectoral member to participate. There are some, let’s say, not exceptions, but other stakeholder groups are able to access ITU discussions. Why not civil society, right? So, to me, it doesn’t make sense that you have huge, huge membership fees for CSOs and the exclusion, the exceptions, right? They are still very, very difficult to, let’s say, tap into, right? Because of the conditions attached with them. Within ICANN, there are perhaps the decisions on where the face-to-face meetings are held. What we’re suggesting is that the location takes into account, for instance, small island states, which are, for instance, in the Pacific, in regions which normally are rendered automatically inaccessible because of the huge traveling costs, etc. So, perhaps a change in how the rotation takes place. At the IETF, one of the main challenges is the language, because the IETF discussions are predominantly in English, right? So, how about real-time interpretation, right? And we’re not saying 1,000 different languages, right? We had a lightning session the other day. We looked at the languages that, I’m seeing a couple of people smiling, probably they were part of the session, but we had this experiment, right, of finding which languages are perhaps the most common, rather than English. In the whole space where we organized this lightning session, only, I think, one or two persons were English native speakers, right? So, English was their mother tongue. For the rest of the participants, it was not, right? So, again, interpretation to enable, for instance, there are huge, huge communities in Latin America which are very much interested in the work of the IETF, but the language is a barrier. So, why not include Spanish, right, in real-time interpretation? So, it’s granular issues like this that the mapping has identified. in a very granular way.

Laura O Brien: Thank you, Stephanie. I think this mapping exercise and looking at the specific bodies is very helpful for us to all understand the specific issues within each body and ways to address that. And bringing back to the international human rights law aspect of the question and the discussion today, I think the joint statement from the Freedom Online Coalition that Rasmus mentioned in the beginning on technical standards and human rights in the context of digital technologies could be really influential in trying to address and bridge those barriers. Having a bunch of FOC governments committing to these principles from a human rights perspective is really helpful in advancing moving forward. So thank you for all those suggestions. My next is over to Rose. What role do technical standards play in ensuring the security, reliability, and interoperability of critical infrastructure like subsea cables, which is an increasingly interesting topic? And how can international cooperation and multi-stakeholder partnerships strengthen their governance?

Rose Payne: Great. Thank you so much. I’m so glad to have a chance to be here with you all. Just before I move on to subsea cables, I’ll give you a bit of info to kind of place me. So my name is Rose Payne. I work for an organization called Global Partners Digital. We work to ensure that laws, norms, and standards that govern technology are first of all rights respecting, but also created in an open, inclusive, and transparent manner. So as a part of that work, we’ve worked in multi-stakeholder venues like ICANN, in multilateral venues like ITU. And I’m so glad to hear what Stephanie and Natalie have already said because we’ve actually run projects to bring global majority civil society into technical standards setting bodies previously. And I think just to pick up on what Devine said as well, I actually got into this field first of all through the kind of financial inclusion as a lever for digital inclusion field. So I’m always really happy when someone mentions mobile money. Bringing those kinds of organizations into technical standards setting bodies also helps from actually a technical point of view because they can bring the point of view of end users who are in low resource, low connectivity environments who also may be using older technology. In addition, as we’ve already heard, the role of kind of human rights organizations specifically is that they can help unpack the impact of protocols or standards on the end user and on the functioning of the open, safe internet. And I actually, to bring it back to the technical community, that does actually drive adoption ultimately. So I think that’s beneficial for everyone. So just before I move on to subsidy cables, I just want to note that while some of what I say aligns with GPD’s focus on human rights, actually I’m mostly drawing on research which I’ve done previously, including through a fellowship for the Internet Society. So technical standards are obviously really vitally important for subsidy cables. So they need to withstand a really harsh environment. They’re obviously under the sea and they’re vital to the functioning of our societies. They carry some 95% to 99% of all transnational data. They’re built and owned often by a consortia of different companies and they need to make land in at least two countries if they’re connecting, if they’re transnational, and to at least one landing station where they connect with terrestrial networks. All these points of interconnection are what make the standards so important. Their position is also necessarily a matter of public record. Ships or people carrying out seabed activities need to know where they are so that they can avoid damaging them. So this kind of combined criticality and vulnerability makes standards really, really important. I want to give, again, a shout-out to, I believe, Laura, that you might be involved in a body at the UN. So there’s a joint statement on cables which was released before that. The European Commission has also released a recommendation. And I think that both of these highlighted the value of working with trusted suppliers in a tense geopolitical environment. And I think it’s really worth highlighting the role of standards in not only increasing interoperability but also in raising trust, not in the least because they obviously increase reliability. But I think that question of trust also kind of reveals the limits of technical standards, if you like. One of the main threats to cables is actually cable cutting. I would like to highlight that it seems that that has been rare. Deliberate malicious actors cutting cables seems to be rare. But it is quite difficult to establish malicious intent because, you know, ships may not – there may be commercial ships that have been near a cable when they’ve been cut. I think that it won’t be news to anyone to say that geopolitical tensions are, however, raising this risk. I do want to give a shout-out here again to technical standards that can help gather the information needed to support resilience and feed information into people who are trying to protect cables. And I’m particularly thinking here about geospatial data standards that help to bring together different types of data which can be used to actually understand risks, if not in real time, in a timely manner. But, yes, while I think technical standards are a critical foundation, there is a limit to their effectiveness when it comes to malicious actors in this area. And I think that that’s where the question of multistakeholder partnerships and international cooperation comes in. At the limits of effectiveness for technical standards, you hope that policies provide protection. I think, you know, a lot of these cables are fundamentally international. That means we need international legal frameworks direct to their protection. However, those frameworks, when it comes to cables, are quite out of date. The UN, the UNCLOS, was made a long time ago. There have been a lot of efforts to update it. And, sorry, UNCLOS is the UN framework which governs the kind of international seabed. And, yeah, while those kind of attempts to update that framework have been a little bit slow, I think that, Laura, I’m not sure if you are involved in the international advisory. No, apologies. Maybe it’s someone else. Sorry. But, yeah, there is an international advisory body for submarine cable resilience which was established in 2024. But, yeah, so I think that there is a bit of a policy gap. I think that also because cables are owned and operated by the private sector but are critical infrastructure for many countries, this means that while the responsibility for repair may fall on the private sector, the responsibility for protection, for trying to prevent cable cutting, is a little bit less clear. Countries are trying to overcome this by forming smaller alliances. I think NATO has set up an undersea infrastructure coordination cell. Navies are working together to try and prevent or at least track cable cutting. But it’s just a really huge challenge. So I suppose my point here is that we need cooperation not only between technical standards-setting bodies but also across governments, private sector actors, and civil society. We really can’t afford to get it wrong because a single damaged cable, depending on where you are in the network, because some countries really are quite poorly connected. They may only have one cable which connects them to the global internet. Tonga has experienced, for example, repeated complete blackouts due to primarily natural disasters. Repairs are often very expensive and slow, which means that countries can remain offline for quite a long time. And I think that in the situation that we’re in today where subsea cables are essentially the foundation for exercising a lot of rights, such as freedom of expression, access to information, right to privacy, through access to the internet, that is a serious, serious problem. To go back to that question of language, I think having sat in some meetings where people are discussing technical standards related to cables, there is really a fundamental disconnection between the way that governments talk about them as this kind of geopolitical challenge and the way that technical standards that everybody is discussing, the kind of protection of cables, where in a way geopolitics is seen as something which kind of gets in the way of their work. So I think, again, that kind of work of translation between different communities which are involved in the protection and governance of cables is really, really important.

Laura O Brien: important. Thanks. Yes, thank you very much, Rose. It’s very helpful to have, to narrow in specifically on the undersea cable topic, especially, you know, that data, that statistic that’s always mentioned about the 90 to 95 percent of transnational data comes from undersea cables is always something that stands out, and I think you really got to the issue about the trust component in this space, in this discussion that we’re having, and I really also appreciated that you mentioned, you know, the, you brought up UNCLOS and the international legal frameworks with relation to undersea cables. While I’m not a part of the body that you mentioned, I have been doing my own research on this topic, having previously worked in the realm of international law of the sea, but I do think, yeah, the point that you also concluded on about the disconnect between governments and the way they talk about subsea cables and the technical standards and seeing geopolitics as a way that they want to shy away from, I think, is something that we need to delve in, especially from the human rights perspective that you also highlighted. So, thank you very much for those insights. Finally, I want to turn to Alex. We’ve heard a lot from, you know, civil society perspective, perspective academia, but the private sector has a huge role in this, and I think you will offer some very insightful insights on how ways that the private sector work with civil society and other stakeholders to ensure that there is this human rights-based approach throughout all the stages of the standard development process. So,

Alex Walden: over to you. Yeah, and thanks so much for including us in this conversation today. It’s one of the topics I love most because I think, actually, it’s one of the topics where we have so much alignment across stakeholder groups. Obviously, as folks have pointed out, there are lots of areas for improvement, but I think we generally have a lot of alignment about the need for continued investment and focus here. So, maybe I’m going to do a lot of underscoring what other colleagues have said and sort of plus one-ing, but maybe just to highlight a few things. I think the importance of the role of the private sector, most importantly, is to continue to invest in connectivity and infrastructure and interoperability among those things. And so, that is something that we are doing heavily. Obviously, Google is a major investor in particular in subsea cables around the world, looking to ensure that there is increased connectivity everywhere from Japan, Australia, new cables in sub-Saharan Africa, et cetera. So, that’s very important to us sort of philosophically and then, obviously, for our business. And so, that is, I think, a really important area of alignment where the private sector is very much aligned with governments and civil society and communities in wanting to ensure that we’re bringing connectivity to everyone everywhere. The sort of important second piece related to that is to ensure that we are committed to human rights and implementing human rights frameworks in the ways that we are thinking about doing all of that work. And so, for us, we are involved in places like the Freedom Online Coalition, in the Global Network Initiative, and have commitments to the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. And those are important baselines for understanding how we should think about sort of the high-level principles and then also, you know, more granular ways we should be thinking about how human rights impacts might be – there might be human rights impacts as outcomes of some of the technical standards and the ways we’re thinking about expanding connectivity. So, ensuring that we are thinking about human rights in the context of all this work that we’re doing. And sort of maybe separate but related point is ensuring that we’re engaging with stakeholders throughout that process. There, you know, I think we are always talking about how technical standard – there’s a lot of, I think, framing that that work is neutral. And, of course, it is not. There are always ways in which there can be rights-related impacts, positive or negative. And so, we need to ensure that it is not just folks who are technologists in those conversations, not just governments and companies, but that we have rights experts at the table helping all of us understand what the potential externalities of any standards might be. And so, the last thing I’ll say on this is maybe just that I think companies, as we are also wanting to ensure that we have a seat at the table for these conversations because we have sort of an obvious and important role in investing and innovating, is making sure that we are always advocating for our colleagues in civil society and human rights experts in particular to be at the table and advocating to decrease barriers to entry for all of the stakeholder groups that others have been talking about. So, I’ll stop there. I’m looking forward to others’ comments. But I think that’s, you know, as we have a seat at the table, it’s important for us to reinforce the importance of rights and the importance of all of our expert colleagues being at the table

Laura O Brien: to contribute. Yes, thank you very much, Alex. I think it’s helpful to understand the private sector perspective, linking it back to the work that you’re doing with the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. And we do appreciate when companies try to advocate for civil society and for others to be at the table. It’s really important that we keep doing that in these spaces especially. That concludes the round of questions with the panelists. So, I’d like to open the floor to anyone in the room. If you have any questions, I also understand that we have those online. So, if you’re online, feel free to submit a question and we’ll have a way of

Audience: getting it back to the panels. Okay. Hi, I’m going to be brief. I’m Israel Rosas with the Internet Society. I think this topic is super relevant. I won’t touch on anything about standard bodies, standardization bodies, but particularly on the work related to the ITU sector conferences. We understand that there is a barrier to participate there. And that’s why we are trying to work with our community to try to be this link between the information happening in these regional preparatory meetings. For instance, last year we did an effort for the World Telecommunications Standardization Assembly. Our colleagues are attending the regional preparatory meetings, debriefing the community, taking the input from the community, and trying to be this bridge. We are doing the same for this year’s World Telecommunication Development Conference. My invitation at this point, more than a question, is an invitation to strengthen the collaboration with the Freedom Online Coalition, with different organizations. If you’re interested in getting involved in the world, in the work related to WTDC this year, to the plenipotentiary conferences next year, the WTPF, all these sector conferences, we would really love to work together because we know that we need to bridge that gap regarding the work in the ITU. Either with our chapters or directly with the organization, we are really happy to collaborate with you and we can explore further ways after this session. Thank you. Anyone want to quickly comment

Stephanie Borg Psaila: on that? I just want to say that one of the chapters is in fact one of the Internet Society chapters, in fact a partner in the project that we are leading. So happy to take the conversation

Audience: forward. Yes, and please introduce yourself. Speaking as an individual and having trouble with this thing. Anyway, I’m somewhat disappointed with this panel. One is because you managed to put together a panel about how do technical standards shape connectivity inclusion, and did not include a single person who actually works with technical standards, as far as I can tell. So this is one of the fallacies that I’ve seen multiple times in the attempts to so-called bring human rights into the technical bodies, that civil society groups seem to have this idea that they can affect things by standing outside and shouting in. We let us in, let us in. Except that, well, the door is open. You’re not listening. And as a technologist, I mean, I’m a bash technologist. I’m part of civil society. I’m part of the people who care about human rights impacts, because I am a member of civil society. So this false distinction between the technical community that doesn’t care and the civil society that cares about all the right things but happens to not understand this is false. This is not something that is good for progress. So it might be that we should focus on ensuring that the technologists can know about the civil society impact, of course. But don’t expect that being outside and shouting in will help.

Rose Payne: Rose? Thank you. Sorry, I’m going to take this off because I can hear myself echoing. Thank you. I completely appreciate your point. I will just say that what I was trying to mention, albeit very briefly, is that actually we have taken civil society into these bodies. We found there are challenges. I’m not going to pretend there aren’t challenges. I think we’ve touched on them quite extensively, but we’re not saying that they weren’t welcomed. We’re just saying that there are challenges in relating the different languages. Of course, civil society, who specialise in human rights, hold a completely different area of expertise to technical experts who are actually working with standards. Finding a way to communicate across those communities is a bit of a challenge sometimes. A lot of it is about capacity building on the civil society side, but perhaps, just to pick on what you said, we should also be doing capacity building to try and publicise more about what we’re trying to do, to try and talk more about how we can actually be helpful to your work. So I take that on board.

Stephanie Borg Psaila: Can I add to that? Actually, some language we are trying to avoid is precisely describing civil society as on the outside shouting in, right? Because that language in itself is already a barrier. But building on what Rose said, and I agree with Rose completely, it’s the distinction between technical community and civil society. I mean, it’s a natural almost distinction. Why? Because the work that we do every day, if I’m not working in standards, right? I can’t call myself a technical person, right? And it’s the same vice versa, right? So the categories, right? I think they’re very much connected to the work we do on an everyday basis. And it’s only natural that I call myself, for instance, a lawyer if I’m working on laws, right? I think one of the main issues is understanding each other, right? Again, it’s not a matter of people who care and people who don’t. We all care. Maybe about different things, and what people like at the forefront of projects, for instance, bringing CSOs closer to these conversations and helping the people leading these conversations understand civil society. We’re trying to act as bridges, right? To literally pull down the walls. A lot has been done already. And in the mapping report, far from being a compilation of barriers or this has to happen, we’ve outlined also some of the really, really good practices that are happening in some of the organizations I mentioned. So at the ITU, ICANN, IETF, there are definitely good examples to be modeled across the board. So we bring those out also. And it’s those models that we… We know that some of the models work. So, for instance, real-time interpretation. We have that here at the IGF, right? We know it works, and it is because these spaces are already implementing some of the issues that we’re saying, okay, why don’t you try this issue? Because it has helped people to get together and to understand each other more. So definitely not trying to… The compartmentalization beyond what is natural, that we are, I think, trying to avoid. But definitely what you said taken on board, absolutely.

Laura O Brien: I know Natalie wanted to come in as well.

Natalie Turkova: I just have a little comment. Thank you so much for saying what you were saying. And I totally agree. I don’t like these distinctions, because at the end of the day, we are all using the internet as end users, right? So just being in these boxes makes no sense. And honestly, I’m a perfect example of a person who has completely random background, having a psychology degree and a media studies degree. But then just organically being interested in some of the aspects that I was researching, I was like, oh, actually, I need to understand the internet more and come more on different aspects of the issue, understanding the technicalities. I was low-key and slowly educating myself and eventually started whispering outside and be like, can you let me in? I actually have some ideas, but I also need to learn from you inside. And I’m one of those people who somehow managed to get in, but I can name and highlight these obstacles that I faced. So I just want to say that it’s definitely possible to be inside, as you used the metaphor, to be in the room, but it can still be quite bumpy road. So I’m more than happy to be here. And I feel like we all can agree that it is definitely possible. It is the way it should be, but still it is not the smoothest way. So I would say this is just my comment for you. But thank you so much for saying that.

Audience: I know we’re almost five minutes at time, so I want the next question, please. Hi, my name is Colin Perkins from the University of Glasgow. I’m a former IEB member and a long-time IETF participant. Just to echo that previous point, I would note that the process for a technical person coming to a venue like this is also somewhat bumpy at times. I’d also, I think, echo Harold’s comments that it is a little disappointing, given the large number of people from the leadership of these various standards bodies that you were talking about who are at this meeting, that none of them are included in this panel. Thank you for the interesting debate. You’re certainly raising some interesting questions. I certainly agree about the need for inclusion of people from a broader range of backgrounds in the various standards development bodies. On the IETF side, I know the IETF has spent considerable effort to try and improve inclusivity. For example, it’s been providing remote participation in various forms since, I believe, 1992. So there is some effort going in here. I am, however, concerned that this panel is grouping together the various standards bodies and acting as if they all behave somewhat the same. The models for participation and the membership fees or lack thereof in the different standards bodies vary tremendously. The ability to access the final standards, the work-in-progress documents, the ability for anybody to participate in the meetings or not participate in the meetings is wildly different across these bodies. There are certainly some valid criticisms here. I do not doubt that. But there are also perhaps some overly broad statements that have been made which are not representative of all the standards bodies. I would encourage you to focus your criticism such that it is actionable and the people developing the standards, the people running the standards bodies, can actually help address the problems rather than making overly broad statements.

Laura O Brien: Thank you. Thank you. I notice that we’re at time, so I would like to take this opportunity to highlight three of the main takeaways that I’ve noticed from this discussion today. The first involves the barriers. We discussed language barriers, membership fees, the lack of transparency, but I think the Q&A portion also highlighted the understanding each other and including each other and bearing in mind how these barriers are different across different various bodies. So I appreciate the last comment and acknowledge that they’re different in various settings. The second is to build capacity amongst stakeholders. And again, this I think was very highlighted in the discussion, amongst government, civil society, technical community and the private sector. We’re disconnected on many fronts and I think the geopolitical context that we’re in does not help in understanding different perspectives and bringing those to the forefront. And of course, in order to ensure that there’s access and meaningful inclusion and participation of all stakeholders, we must ground discussions in international human rights law and centre international human rights. And I think on a final takeaway, I want to highlight the Freedom Online Coalition’s joint statement from 2024 that Rasmus mentioned in the introduction was very instrumental in bringing together those standards, so I believe we should be using that in these processes. And I want to thank you all for joining the discussion today, for listening to the panelists. I want to thank the panelists for their engagement and their expertise on this topic and look forward to future discussions. Thank you.

Agreement points

Technical standards are not neutral and embed values that affect human rights and everyday users

Technical standards are not neutral and embed values that affect human rights and everyday users

Technical standardization should be aligned with international human rights law from the outset to prevent surveillance and exclusion

Both speakers agree that technical standards inherently embed values and can have significant human rights impacts, requiring proactive consideration of these effects rather than treating standards as neutral technical decisions

Infrastructure | Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Financial barriers and membership fees exclude civil society from meaningful participation

High membership fees create financial barriers that prevent civil society organizations from participating

Implement structural changes from the top of standards organizations to address systemic barriers

Both speakers identify membership fees as a fundamental barrier that prevents civil society organizations from participating in standards bodies, requiring structural changes to address these financial obstacles

Infrastructure | Development | Legal and regulatory

Language barriers significantly limit participation in technical standards processes

Technical language and complexity intimidate regular end-users and create accessibility challenges

Language barriers, particularly English-only discussions, exclude non-native speakers from meaningful participation

Both speakers recognize that language creates multiple barriers – both the technical complexity of the language used and the dominance of English in discussions – that prevent broader participation

Infrastructure | Sociocultural | Development

Standards play a crucial role in bridging the digital divide through practical applications

Open and interoperable standards lower costs and promote competition, enabling financial inclusion through mobile money systems

TV white space standards enable broadband delivery to rural areas using unused spectrum

Both speakers provide concrete examples of how technical standards have successfully bridged digital divides, particularly in developing regions through innovative applications like mobile money and rural broadband

Infrastructure | Development | Economic

Private sector should advocate for civil society inclusion in standards processes

Private sector should advocate for civil society inclusion and decreased barriers to entry in standards bodies

Implement structural changes from the top of standards organizations to address systemic barriers

Both speakers agree that those with existing access to standards bodies (private sector) should use their position to advocate for broader inclusion and structural changes to remove barriers for civil society

Infrastructure | Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Similar viewpoints

All three speakers emphasize the need for specific mechanisms to include diverse stakeholders and bridge communication gaps between different communities involved in standards development

Create dedicated seats and observing roles for end-user advocates and human rights experts in standards bodies

Provide real-time interpretation in multiple languages, particularly Spanish for Latin American communities

Translation between technical and policy communities is crucial for effective collaboration

Infrastructure | Human rights | Sociocultural

Both speakers advocate for integrating established human rights frameworks and principles into standards development processes to ensure positive outcomes for digital inclusion

Standards should contribute to digital inclusion and sustainable development goals through rights-based approaches

Private sector must implement human rights frameworks like UN Guiding Principles throughout standards development

Infrastructure | Human rights | Development

All three speakers recognize that geographical and logistical barriers significantly limit participation and propose various solutions including virtual participation and strategic meeting locations

Enable virtual participation and hybrid modalities to increase accessibility across regions

Location of meetings in inaccessible regions automatically excludes participants from small island states and developing countries

Translation between technical and policy communities is crucial for effective collaboration

Infrastructure | Development | Sociocultural

Unexpected consensus

Private sector as advocate for civil society inclusion

Private sector should advocate for civil society inclusion and decreased barriers to entry in standards bodies

Implement structural changes from the top of standards organizations to address systemic barriers

Create dedicated seats and observing roles for end-user advocates and human rights experts in standards bodies

It’s unexpected to see such strong alignment between private sector and civil society representatives on the need for companies to actively advocate for civil society inclusion, suggesting a recognition that diverse participation benefits all stakeholders including business interests

Infrastructure | Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Technical community and civil society are not fundamentally opposed groups

False distinction between technical community and civil society creates unnecessary divisions when both groups care about human rights

Technical standards are not neutral and embed values that affect human rights and everyday users

Translation between technical and policy communities is crucial for effective collaboration

The consensus that the technical/civil society divide is artificial and counterproductive is unexpected, as it challenges common assumptions about these communities having fundamentally different priorities and approaches

Infrastructure | Human rights | Sociocultural

Overall assessment

Summary

There is strong consensus among speakers on the fundamental challenges facing inclusive participation in technical standards setting, including financial barriers, language obstacles, and the need for human rights integration. Speakers also agree on practical solutions like virtual participation, dedicated seats for civil society, and the importance of translation between communities.

Consensus level

High level of consensus with constructive disagreement mainly around implementation approaches rather than fundamental principles. This suggests a mature understanding of the issues and readiness for collaborative action, though the challenge remains in translating this consensus into concrete institutional changes within standards bodies.

Different viewpoints

Approach to civil society inclusion in technical standards bodies

False distinction between technical community and civil society creates unnecessary divisions when both groups care about human rights

Lack of awareness and closed-door processes exclude end-users and civil society from standards discussions

High membership fees create financial barriers that prevent civil society organizations from participating

Technical language and complexity intimidate regular end-users and create accessibility challenges

Harold (audience member) argued that the distinction between technical community and civil society is false and counterproductive, stating that technologists are also part of civil society and care about human rights. He criticized the approach of ‘standing outside and shouting in’ rather than recognizing that ‘the door is open.’ The panelists, however, maintained that there are real structural barriers (fees, language, processes) that need to be addressed to enable meaningful participation.

Infrastructure | Human rights | Sociocultural

Unexpected differences

Fundamental framing of the inclusion problem in technical standards

False distinction between technical community and civil society creates unnecessary divisions when both groups care about human rights

Lack of awareness and closed-door processes exclude end-users and civil society from standards discussions

The disagreement was unexpected because Harold, as a technologist, challenged the entire premise of the panel discussion. Rather than debating specific solutions to inclusion barriers, he questioned whether the barriers actually exist as described, arguing that the technical community already includes people who care about human rights and that the ‘door is open.’ This fundamental disagreement about problem definition was surprising given that the panel was focused on solutions.

Infrastructure | Human rights | Sociocultural

Representation and expertise on the panel itself

False distinction between technical community and civil society creates unnecessary divisions when both groups care about human rights

Both audience members criticized the panel for discussing technical standards without including actual technical standards practitioners, despite many being present at the IGF meeting. This meta-disagreement about the panel’s composition was unexpected as it challenged the legitimacy of the discussion itself rather than engaging with the proposed solutions.

Infrastructure | Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion revealed a fundamental tension between those who see structural barriers to civil society participation in technical standards bodies and those who believe the barriers are more perceived than real. While panelists largely agreed on the importance of inclusion and human rights integration, they disagreed on specific mechanisms and approaches.

Disagreement level

Moderate disagreement with significant implications. The disagreements were not about whether inclusion is important, but about whether current exclusion is systemic or self-imposed, and what solutions are most effective. The audience pushback suggests that the technical community may be more open to collaboration than civil society representatives believe, but there may be communication gaps preventing effective engagement. This has important implications for how inclusion efforts should be designed and implemented.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

All three speakers emphasize the need for specific mechanisms to include diverse stakeholders and bridge communication gaps between different communities involved in standards development

Create dedicated seats and observing roles for end-user advocates and human rights experts in standards bodies

Provide real-time interpretation in multiple languages, particularly Spanish for Latin American communities

Translation between technical and policy communities is crucial for effective collaboration

Infrastructure | Human rights | Sociocultural

Both speakers advocate for integrating established human rights frameworks and principles into standards development processes to ensure positive outcomes for digital inclusion

Standards should contribute to digital inclusion and sustainable development goals through rights-based approaches

Private sector must implement human rights frameworks like UN Guiding Principles throughout standards development

Infrastructure | Human rights | Development

All three speakers recognize that geographical and logistical barriers significantly limit participation and propose various solutions including virtual participation and strategic meeting locations

Enable virtual participation and hybrid modalities to increase accessibility across regions

Location of meetings in inaccessible regions automatically excludes participants from small island states and developing countries

Translation between technical and policy communities is crucial for effective collaboration

Infrastructure | Development | Sociocultural

Key takeaways

Technical standards are not neutral and significantly impact human rights, digital inclusion, and everyday users’ access to digital services

Major barriers to inclusive participation include high membership fees, language barriers (particularly English-only discussions), lack of awareness, technical complexity, and inaccessible meeting locations

Open and interoperable standards successfully bridge digital divides, as demonstrated by mobile money systems in Africa that enabled 80% financial inclusion

Standards development must integrate human rights considerations from the outset rather than attempting to address issues after implementation

Subsea cables carrying 95-99% of transnational data require robust technical standards for security and reliability, but face limitations against malicious actors

Different standards bodies (ITU, IETF, ICANN, IEEE, W3C) have varying participation models and barriers that require targeted, specific solutions rather than broad generalizations

Private sector has responsibility to advocate for civil society inclusion while investing in connectivity infrastructure and implementing human rights frameworks

Capacity building and translation between technical and policy communities is essential for effective multi-stakeholder collaboration

Resolutions and action items

Internet Society offered to strengthen collaboration with Freedom Online Coalition and other organizations for ITU sector conferences including WTDC and plenipotentiary conferences

Diplo Foundation’s CAID project published granular mapping of barriers in specific standards bodies with actionable solutions

Recommendation to use Freedom Online Coalition’s 2024 joint statement on technical standards and human rights as framework for future processes

Proposal to implement real-time interpretation in multiple languages, particularly Spanish for Latin American participation

Suggestion to create dedicated seats and observing roles for end-user advocates and human rights experts in standards bodies

Call for structural changes from top of standards organizations to address systemic participation barriers

Unresolved issues

How to effectively bridge the disconnect between government geopolitical discussions and technical standards communities regarding critical infrastructure

Updating outdated international legal frameworks like UNCLOS for modern subsea cable protection needs

Addressing the fundamental tension between technical expertise requirements and inclusive participation goals

Resolving financial sustainability of providing interpretation, virtual participation, and other accessibility measures across different standards bodies

Determining optimal balance between technical neutrality and human rights integration in standards development

Clarifying responsibility allocation between private sector and governments for protecting critical infrastructure like subsea cables

Suggested compromises

Hybrid participation models combining in-person and virtual attendance to increase accessibility while maintaining technical depth

Graduated membership fee structures or exemptions for civil society organizations from developing countries

Capacity building programs that work bidirectionally – helping civil society understand technical work while helping technologists understand human rights impacts

Translation and bridge-building roles for organizations like Internet Society chapters to connect communities with standards bodies

Focus on specific, actionable criticisms tailored to individual standards bodies rather than broad generalizations

Recognition that both technical community and civil society contain diverse perspectives and expertise that should be valued equally

Actually, I’m somewhat disappointed with this panel. One is because you managed to put together a panel about how do technical standards shape connectivity inclusion, and did not include a single person who actually works with technical standards… So this false distinction between the technical community that doesn’t care and the civil society that cares about all the right things but happens to not understand this is false.

Speaker

Audience member (speaking as individual)

Reason

This comment fundamentally challenged the panel’s composition and underlying assumptions about the divide between technical and civil society communities. It exposed a critical blind spot in how the discussion was framed and forced participants to confront whether they were perpetuating the very divisions they claimed to want to bridge.

Impact

This comment created a significant turning point in the discussion, shifting from theoretical solutions to confronting real structural issues in how these conversations are organized. It prompted immediate defensive but thoughtful responses from multiple panelists, leading to more nuanced acknowledgments of the complexity of bridging communities and the need for mutual capacity building rather than one-directional inclusion.

I think technical standardization can contribute to digital inclusion and advancing the SDGs by being better aligned to international human rights law. So I’ve turned that a little bit around… If the discussion does not take place on the outset, as Natalie said, then it’s very difficult to solve.

Speaker

Stephanie Borg Psaila

Reason

This reframing was intellectually significant because it inverted the typical approach of trying to retrofit human rights considerations into technical standards. Instead, it positioned human rights law as the foundational framework that should guide technical standardization from the beginning, representing a paradigm shift in thinking.

Impact

This reframing elevated the entire discussion by providing a concrete methodological approach rather than just aspirational goals. It connected abstract human rights principles to practical technical implementation and reinforced the theme that prevention is better than remediation, influencing how other panelists discussed timing and process design.

But it’s just a really huge challenge. So I suppose my point here is that we need cooperation not only between technical standards-setting bodies but also across governments, private sector actors, and civil society. We really can’t afford to get it wrong because a single damaged cable… can remain offline for quite a long time.

Speaker

Rose Payne

Reason

This comment was particularly insightful because it demonstrated the real-world stakes of technical standards through the concrete example of subsea cables. It showed how technical decisions have immediate human rights implications and highlighted the limits of technical solutions when facing geopolitical challenges.

Impact

This grounded the entire discussion in tangible consequences, moving beyond abstract principles to show why inclusive standard-setting matters for real people. It also introduced the critical insight about the disconnect between how governments and technical communities approach the same infrastructure challenges, adding a new dimension to the inclusion discussion.

These standards are the backbone of global connectivity… But this infrastructure is only as strong and as just as the processes behind it. Too often, standard-setting bodies… operate without sufficient input from the global south, from the civil society, or marginalized communities.

Speaker

Rasmus Lumi

Reason

This opening comment was thought-provoking because it immediately established the paradox at the heart of the discussion: universal infrastructure built through exclusive processes. It framed technical standards not as neutral tools but as governance instruments that embed values and power structures.

Impact

This framing set the tone for the entire discussion by establishing that technical standards are inherently political and justice-oriented issues. It provided the conceptual foundation that allowed subsequent speakers to discuss barriers, exclusion, and human rights impacts as central rather than peripheral concerns.

I am, however, concerned that this panel is grouping together the various standards bodies and acting as if they all behave somewhat the same… I would encourage you to focus your criticism such that it is actionable and the people developing the standards… can actually help address the problems rather than making overly broad statements.

Speaker

Colin Perkins (University of Glasgow, former IESG member)

Reason

This comment provided crucial nuance by challenging the panel’s tendency to generalize across different standards bodies. It represented the voice of someone with deep technical expertise pointing out that solutions must be tailored to specific organizational contexts rather than applied broadly.

Impact

This comment reinforced the earlier critique about including technical voices and pushed the discussion toward more precise, actionable recommendations. It validated the complexity of the challenge while demanding more sophisticated analysis, ultimately strengthening the conversation by requiring greater specificity and practical focus.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally transformed what could have been a superficial discussion about inclusion into a more complex examination of power, expertise, and institutional design. The critical interventions from audience members with technical expertise forced the panelists to confront their own assumptions and move beyond generic solutions toward more nuanced understanding. The discussion evolved from presenting civil society as external advocates seeking entry, to recognizing the artificial nature of community boundaries and the need for mutual capacity building. The concrete examples (mobile money, subsea cables) grounded abstract principles in real-world consequences, while the methodological insights about timing and process design provided actionable frameworks. Ultimately, these comments elevated the discussion from advocacy to analysis, creating a more honest and productive dialogue about the genuine challenges of making technical standard-setting more inclusive and rights-respecting.

How can we strengthen collaboration between the Freedom Online Coalition and organizations like the Internet Society for ITU sector conferences (WTDC, plenipotentiary conferences, WTPF)?

Speaker

Israel Rosas (Internet Society)

Explanation

This represents a concrete opportunity to bridge the participation gap in ITU processes by leveraging existing networks and expertise to facilitate civil society engagement in upcoming conferences.

How can we better include actual technical standards practitioners in discussions about human rights impacts of technical standards?

Speaker

Audience member (speaking as individual)

Explanation

This highlights a fundamental gap in the composition of panels discussing technical standards, suggesting that meaningful progress requires direct participation from those who actually develop the standards.

How can we develop more effective capacity building programs that work bidirectionally – helping civil society understand technical processes while helping technical communities understand human rights impacts?

Speaker

Rose Payne and Stephanie Borg Psaila (in response to audience feedback)

Explanation

This addresses the need for mutual understanding and communication across different expert communities rather than one-way advocacy.

How can we develop more nuanced, body-specific approaches to addressing barriers rather than making overly broad generalizations about all standards bodies?

Speaker

Colin Perkins (University of Glasgow/former IESG member)

Explanation

This calls for more targeted and actionable criticism that recognizes the significant differences in participation models, fees, and accessibility across different standards organizations.

How can we better bridge the disconnect between how governments discuss subsea cables as geopolitical challenges versus how technical communities view geopolitics as interference in their work?

Speaker

Rose Payne

Explanation

This represents a critical communication gap that affects the governance and protection of critical infrastructure, requiring translation between different stakeholder perspectives.

What specific structural changes need to come from the top of standards organizations to meaningfully address civil society participation barriers?

Speaker

Stephanie Borg Psaila

Explanation

This points to the need for systematic organizational reform rather than ad-hoc solutions, requiring research into what governance changes would be most effective.

How can we better publicize and communicate what civil society organizations are trying to achieve in technical standards bodies to increase understanding and collaboration?

Speaker

Rose Payne (in response to audience feedback)

Explanation

This addresses the need for better outreach and communication about civil society’s role and contributions to technical standards development.

Summary

This discussion was initiated by Audrey Moakley, Deputy Director at OpenMic, a non-profit organization that works with investors on technology and society issues. The session was designed as an informal networking opportunity for participants to discuss each other’s work and engage with contemporary challenges in the tech sector. Moakley framed the conversation around Ian Bremmer’s recent article “The Technopolar Paradox” published in Foreign Affairs, which presents a compelling thesis about the current global power structure.

According to Bremmer’s argument, the world has entered what he terms a “technopolar moment,” characterized by a fundamental shift in geopolitical influence. In this new paradigm, a small number of large technology companies now compete directly with nation-states for global influence and power. These tech giants exercise what Bremmer describes as a form of sovereignty over digital spaces, with their influence increasingly extending into the physical world as well. The article specifically highlights how prominent tech leaders such as Elon Musk, Sam Altman, Mark Zuckerberg, and Jeff Bezos have transcended their traditional roles as business executives.

These individuals are now not only driving significant stock market returns but also wielding substantial control over critical aspects of civil society, political processes, and international affairs. This concentration of power raises fundamental questions about democratic governance and accountability in the digital age. Moakley posed a central challenge to the group: assuming Bremmer’s analysis is correct, how can civil society organizations, investors, and government entities effectively push for accountability when tech companies have become leading global powers? She specifically asked participants to consider what levers of influence remain available in this new power structure, while also leaving room for participants to challenge Bremmer’s premise entirely. The discussion was positioned as an opportunity to explore both the challenges and potential solutions in this evolving technological landscape.

Keypoints

**Major Discussion Points:**

– The concept of a “technopolar moment” where major tech companies (led by figures like Musk, Altman, Zuckerberg, and Bezos) now compete with nation-states for geopolitical influence

– Tech companies exercising sovereignty over digital spaces and increasingly influencing the physical world, affecting civil society, politics, and international affairs

– The challenge of maintaining accountability for tech companies that have achieved power comparable to or exceeding traditional government institutions

– Available levers of influence for civil society, investors, and governments to push for tech company accountability in this new power dynamic

– Whether Ian Bremmer’s “technopolar paradox” thesis accurately describes the current global power structure or if alternative perspectives exist

**Overall Purpose/Goal:**

The discussion was designed as an informal networking and idea-sharing session among stakeholders (including investors, civil society representatives, and presumably government officials) to explore how to address accountability challenges posed by the growing geopolitical influence of major tech companies. The facilitator explicitly sought to generate conversation about practical solutions and hoped to hear optimistic perspectives on managing this power shift.

**Overall Tone:**

The tone was professional yet conversational, with the facilitator (Audrey Mocle) deliberately shifting from a more formal planned format to an informal discussion style. The tone appeared somewhat concerned about the implications of tech company power concentration, but remained constructive and solution-oriented. The facilitator’s request for optimistic viewpoints suggests an underlying tension between acknowledging serious challenges while maintaining hope for viable solutions.

Speakers

– Audrey Mocle: Deputy Director at OpenMic (a non-profit that works with investors on issues around tech and society)

Additional speakers:

– Ian Bremmer: Founder of the Eurasia Group (mentioned as referenced author, not a direct participant in this discussion)

– Musk: (mentioned as example of tech leader, not a direct participant)

– Altman: (mentioned as example of tech leader, not a direct participant)

– Zuckerberg: (mentioned as example of tech leader, not a direct participant)

– Bezos: (mentioned as example of tech leader, not a direct participant)

Note: Based on the transcript provided, only Audrey Mocle actually spoke in this discussion. The other individuals mentioned (Ian Bremmer, Musk, Altman, Zuckerberg, and Bezos) were referenced in the context of her remarks but did not participate as speakers in this particular discussion.

# Discussion Summary: The Technopolar Paradox and Tech Company Accountability

## Event Context

This discussion was facilitated by Audrey Moakley, Deputy Director at OpenMic, a non-profit organization that works with investors on issues around tech and society. Moakley shifted from a planned formal format to an informal networking discussion, noting that the transcript captures only her opening remarks with no participant responses included.

## Central Framework: The Technopolar Moment

Moakley anchored the discussion around Ian Bremmer’s recent article “The Technopolar Paradox,” published in Foreign Affairs (she initially said “Foreign Policy” before correcting herself). According to Bremmer’s thesis, the world has entered a “technopolar moment” where a small number of large technology companies now compete with nation-states for global influence and power.

Bremmer describes this as tech companies exercising a form of sovereignty over digital spaces, with their influence extending into the physical world. Moakley highlighted how prominent tech leaders—Elon Musk, Sam Altman, Mark Zuckerberg, and Jeff Bezos—have moved beyond traditional business roles to wield substantial control over aspects of civil society, political processes, and international affairs, while also driving significant stock market returns.

## Key Question Posed

The core challenge Moakley presented was: assuming Bremmer’s analysis is correct, how can civil society organizations, investors, and government entities effectively push for accountability when tech companies have become leading global powers? She specifically asked participants to consider what levers of influence remain available in this new power structure, acknowledging a potential power imbalance between tech companies and traditional governance mechanisms.

## Discussion Approach

Moakley structured the session as an opportunity to explore both challenges and potential solutions in this technological landscape. She explicitly requested optimistic viewpoints and invited participants to challenge Bremmer’s premise entirely if they disagreed. The facilitator aimed to generate balanced exploration rather than purely critical analysis, creating space for multiple perspectives on tech accountability and the validity of the technopolar theory itself.

Audrey Mocle: Hi everyone. Thank you for coming. I’m Audrey Moakley. I’m the Deputy Director at OpenMic. And for those of you who don’t already know us, we are a non-profit that works with investors on issues around tech and society. And we had initially envisioned something a bit more formal, a bit longer for this, but I think instead it would just be a great opportunity for everyone to just get to know each other and talk about each other’s work. But to start off the conversation, I’ll offer a consideration. So Ian Bremmer, who’s the founder of the Eurasia Group, he recently wrote this article in Foreign Policy, or sorry, yeah, Foreign Affairs, called the Technopolar Paradox. And his argument is that the world has now entered a technopolar moment, which is one where a small number of large tech companies now compete with states for geopolitical influence. And so what he says is that these companies exercise a form of sovereignty over the digital space, and increasingly in the physical world. And so people like Musk, Altman, Zuckerberg, and Bezos are not only driving stock market returns, but also controlling aspects of civil society, politics, and international affairs. And so my question to all of you to kind of kick off the conversation is, if Bremmer’s right and we’re in this technopolar moment, how do we as civil society and investors and government push for accountability in an environment where tech companies are now the leading powers? What levers of influence are left? Or is Bremmer wrong, and why? And yeah, hopefully some of you are optimists, because I’d like to hear that. And with that, yeah, hopefully we can just circle amongst ourselves and chat about it. Thanks.

Agreement points

Similar viewpoints

Unexpected consensus

Overall assessment

Summary

No areas of agreement can be identified as only one speaker (Audrey Mocle) is present in the transcript. She presents Ian Bremmer’s technopolar theory and poses questions about accountability mechanisms for tech companies, but no responses or counter-arguments from other participants are included.

Consensus level

Cannot be determined – insufficient data. The transcript only captures the opening remarks and question-posing by the moderator, with no actual discussion or debate content from other participants to analyze for consensus or disagreement.

Different viewpoints

Unexpected differences

Overall assessment

Summary

No disagreements identified as only one speaker (Audrey Mocle) presents in the transcript

Disagreement level

No disagreement present – this appears to be an opening statement introducing discussion topics rather than an actual debate or discussion with multiple viewpoints. Audrey Mocle presents Ian Bremmer’s technopolar theory and poses questions for future discussion, but no other speakers respond or present alternative viewpoints in the provided transcript.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Key takeaways

The discussion introduces the concept of a ‘technopolar moment’ where major tech companies (led by figures like Musk, Altman, Zuckerberg, and Bezos) now compete with nation-states for geopolitical influence

Tech companies are described as exercising a form of sovereignty over both digital spaces and increasingly the physical world

There is a recognized shift where tech leaders’ influence extends beyond financial markets to controlling aspects of civil society, politics, and international affairs

The central challenge identified is determining how civil society, investors, and government can maintain accountability mechanisms when tech companies have become leading global powers

Resolutions and action items

None identified – this appears to be an opening statement designed to facilitate discussion rather than conclude with specific action items

Unresolved issues

The fundamental question of what levers of influence remain available to civil society, investors, and government for holding tech companies accountable

Whether Bremmer’s technopolar theory is accurate or if there are flaws in this assessment

What specific mechanisms or strategies could be employed to address the power imbalance between tech companies and traditional governance structures

The broader question of how to navigate governance in an environment where private companies wield state-like power

Suggested compromises

None identified – the transcript represents only the opening remarks of what appears to be a longer discussion session

Audrey introduces Ian Bremmer’s concept of the ‘technopolar moment’ where tech companies now compete with states for geopolitical influence, exercising sovereignty over digital and increasingly physical spaces, with leaders like Musk, Altman, Zuckerberg, and Bezos controlling aspects of civil society, politics, and international affairs.

Speaker

Audrey Mocle

Reason

This comment is highly thought-provoking because it reframes the traditional understanding of power structures by positioning tech companies not just as economic actors, but as quasi-governmental entities that rival nation-states. The concept challenges conventional notions of sovereignty and governance, suggesting we’ve entered a new geopolitical paradigm where corporate leaders wield influence traditionally reserved for elected officials and heads of state.

Impact

This comment serves as the foundational framework for the entire discussion. It establishes a provocative thesis that participants must either defend, challenge, or build upon. The comment shifts the conversation from typical tech regulation discussions to a more fundamental question about the nature of power in the 21st century.

The central question posed: ‘how do we as civil society and investors and government push for accountability in an environment where tech companies are now the leading powers? What levers of influence are left?’

Speaker

Audrey Mocle

Reason

This question is particularly insightful because it acknowledges a potential power imbalance and forces participants to think practically about solutions. It moves beyond theoretical analysis to actionable considerations, while also implicitly questioning whether traditional accountability mechanisms are still effective in this new paradigm.

Impact

This question creates the discussion’s central tension and provides a clear direction for participants to engage with. It invites both pessimistic and optimistic perspectives, encouraging a balanced exploration of the challenges and opportunities in tech accountability.

Overall assessment

The transcript represents only the opening remarks of what appears to be a structured discussion, so the full conversational dynamics cannot be assessed. However, Audrey’s introduction successfully establishes a sophisticated intellectual framework that elevates the discussion beyond typical tech policy conversations. By introducing Bremmer’s technopolar concept, she creates a lens through which participants can examine fundamental questions about power, sovereignty, and accountability in the digital age. The framing is particularly effective because it presents a clear thesis while remaining open to challenge, and it bridges theoretical geopolitical analysis with practical concerns about governance and civil society engagement. The setup promises a rich discussion that could explore multiple perspectives on one of the most pressing issues of our time.

How do we as civil society and investors and government push for accountability in an environment where tech companies are now the leading powers?

Speaker

Audrey Mocle

Explanation

This is a central question about governance and accountability mechanisms in the proposed technopolar world order, seeking practical solutions for maintaining democratic oversight of powerful tech companies.

What levers of influence are left for traditional institutions in a technopolar moment?

Speaker

Audrey Mocle

Explanation

This question explores what tools and mechanisms governments, civil society, and investors still have available to influence tech companies that have gained state-like power and sovereignty.

Is Bremmer wrong about the technopolar moment, and if so, why?

Speaker

Audrey Mocle

Explanation

This question challenges the fundamental premise of Ian Bremmer’s thesis, inviting critical analysis of whether tech companies truly exercise sovereignty comparable to nation-states.

What are the optimistic perspectives on accountability and governance in the current tech landscape?

Speaker

Audrey Mocle

Explanation

This seeks positive viewpoints and potential solutions, as the speaker explicitly requested to hear from optimists about managing tech company influence and power.

Summary

This French-speaking roundtable discussion at the Internet Governance Forum focused on the challenges facing Francophone countries in digital governance and artificial intelligence, particularly regarding inclusion, cultural diversity, and data governance. The session was moderated by a representative from Francophonie and included Chad’s Minister of Telecommunications Boukar Michel, French Digital Ambassador Henri Verdier, UN Economic Commission for Africa representative Mactar Seck, and Professor Destiny Tchehouali from the University of Quebec in Montreal.

Minister Michel emphasized how digital technologies and AI present new opportunities to strengthen Francophone ties, building on the historical foundation established by leaders like Léopold Sédar Senghor. He highlighted the need for better digital infrastructure, particularly through programs like Connect Africa, and stressed the importance of creating AI tools that work effectively in French and local African languages. Ambassador Verdier drew parallels between the origins of Francophonie as a shared linguistic commons and the current digital landscape, arguing that digital resources should remain accessible to all rather than being captured by large tech monopolies.

The discussion revealed significant challenges facing Francophone countries, including limited internet access for 2.6 billion people globally and the dominance of English-language content online. Professor Tchehouali introduced the concept of “discoverability,” explaining how French content, despite representing 6% of web content, struggles to be recommended by algorithms that favor English-language material. The participants identified data governance as a critical issue, with Seck noting that individual countries cannot effectively negotiate with tech giants like Google and Facebook alone.

The speakers agreed that regional cooperation through Francophonie is essential to address these challenges, with plans to continue discussions at an upcoming Geneva summit to develop concrete proposals for improving digital inclusion and preserving linguistic diversity in the AI era.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Digital Inclusion and Infrastructure Challenges**: The discussion highlighted that 2.6 billion people still lack internet access, with particular focus on connecting rural territories in Francophone countries and ensuring meaningful connectivity beyond basic access. Speakers emphasized the need for shared infrastructure projects like regional fiber optic networks and data centers.

– **Language Diversity and Cultural Preservation in AI**: A central concern was how to preserve French and other Francophone languages (over 1,000-2,000 languages in the Francophone space) in the age of AI, which is predominantly trained on English data. The concept of “discoverability” was introduced – ensuring Francophone content can be found and recommended online despite representing only 6% of web content.

– **Data Governance and Digital Sovereignty**: Extensive discussion on the need for Francophone countries to control their own data rather than being dependent on major tech companies (GAFAM – Google, Amazon, Facebook, Apple, Microsoft). Speakers called for regional cooperation to negotiate with tech giants and establish frameworks for data protection and value sharing.

– **Francophone Cooperation and Institutional Response**: Strong emphasis on the need for coordinated action among Francophone countries, moving beyond individual national efforts to collective regional approaches. The discussion called for ministers and governments to actively engage in international digital governance forums.

– **Capacity Building and Innovation**: Focus on training young people in AI and digital technologies, supporting local content creation, and digitizing existing cultural and governmental data that currently exists but isn’t digitized.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to explore how Francophone countries can collectively address challenges in digital governance and artificial intelligence, particularly focusing on inclusion, cultural/linguistic diversity, and data sovereignty. It served as preparation for upcoming meetings in Geneva at the World Summit on Information Society.

## Overall Tone:

The tone was collaborative and urgent throughout, with speakers expressing both concern about being left behind in the digital revolution and optimism about the potential for Francophone cooperation. There was a consistent sense of urgency about the need to act collectively rather than individually, with speakers emphasizing that the Francophone space represents a significant global market (over 1 billion people, 15-16% of global GDP) that should have more influence in digital governance. The discussion maintained a constructive, solution-oriented approach while acknowledging serious challenges.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Moderator**: Session moderator for this French-speaking round table on digital governance and AI

– **Boukar Michel**: Minister of Telecommunications, Digital Transformation of Administration, and Digital Economy of the Republic of Chad

– **Henri Verdier**: Ambassador of Digital for France

– **IGF Central Africa representative** (Mactar Seck): Head of the technology and innovation section within the Economic Commission of the United Nations for Africa, based in Addis Ababa; Coordinator for IGF for Central Africa

– **Destiny Tchehouali**: Professor at the University of Quebec in Montreal, specialist on issues of diversity and discoverability (participating remotely from Montreal)

– **Audience**: Multiple audience members who asked questions during the session

**Additional speakers:**

– **Abdelgeril Bacharbon**: From Chad, coordinator of IGF Chad, president of House of Africa

– **Nicole Baibé-Kennedy**: From Chad, Director of Electronic Communications at the Ministry of Telecommunications, Digital Economy and Digitalization of the Public Administration

– **Sébastien Bachelet**: From France, representing European users

– **Sidi Kabubaka Nondishao**: From Alexandria at the University of Senghor, University of French Languages at the African Development Service

– **Emmanuel Empeta**: Member of the National Assembly of the Democratic Republic of Congo

# Comprehensive Report: Francophone Digital Governance and AI Roundtable Discussion

## Executive Summary

This French-speaking roundtable discussion at the Internet Governance Forum brought together key stakeholders from across the Francophone world to address critical challenges in digital governance and artificial intelligence. The session, moderated by a representative from Francophonie, featured high-level participants including Chad’s Minister of Telecommunications Boukar Michel, French Digital Ambassador Henri Verdier, a representative from IGF Central Africa and the UN Economic Commission for Africa, and Professor Destiny Tchehouali from the University of Quebec in Montreal (participating remotely), alongside several other experts and civil society representatives.

The discussion was framed around three main themes identified by the moderator: digital inclusion and infrastructure development, preservation of linguistic and cultural diversity in the AI era, and data governance and digital sovereignty. The session took place in the context of the upcoming World Digital Pact and the World Summit on Information Society beginning July 7th in Geneva. Participants demonstrated broad agreement on fundamental challenges whilst offering varied approaches to implementation, ultimately calling for concrete collective action through upcoming meetings in Geneva.

## Key Participants and Their Perspectives

### Government Representatives

**Minister Boukar Michel** of Chad emphasised the transformative potential of digital technologies for strengthening Francophone ties, drawing inspiration from historical leaders like Léopold Sédar Senghor. He highlighted Chad’s commitment to digital infrastructure development through programmes like Connect Africa, whilst candidly critiquing the frequent absence of Francophone ministers from crucial international digital conferences. His perspective combined optimism about AI’s potential for cultural preservation with practical concerns about creating effective French-language AI tools.

**Ambassador Henri Verdier** of France provided a philosophical framework for the discussion by drawing parallels between Francophonie’s historical success in making French a shared commons and the current need to protect digital resources from monopolisation. He advocated for frugal connectivity solutions and hybrid physical-digital services that can function with limited infrastructure, whilst emphasising the importance of keeping digital commons accessible to all.

### International Organisation Representatives

**The IGF Central Africa representative**, speaking for the UN Economic Commission for Africa, focused on the structural challenges facing the region, noting that individual countries cannot effectively negotiate with tech giants alone. They emphasised the need for shared infrastructure solutions, including regional optical fibre networks and data centres, whilst highlighting the diversity of languages (over 1,000-2,000) within the Francophone space that require protection and promotion.

### Academic Perspective

**Professor Destiny Tchehouali**, participating remotely from Montreal despite some technical difficulties, introduced the critical concept of “discoverability,” explaining how French content, despite representing 6% of web content, struggles to gain visibility through algorithms that favour English-language material. Her analysis revealed the sophisticated mechanisms through which cultural dominance operates in digital spaces, moving beyond simple content creation to the politics of algorithmic recommendation.

## Major Discussion Themes

### Digital Inclusion and Infrastructure Challenges

The discussion revealed the stark reality that 2.6 billion people globally still lack internet access, with particular challenges in connecting rural territories across Francophone countries. Participants agreed that meaningful digital inclusion requires far more than basic connectivity. Minister Michel outlined Chad’s Connect Africa programme, which aims to develop digital infrastructures and fibre optic networks to promote internet access in rural areas.

Ambassador Verdier emphasised that meaningful connectivity must enable emancipation, self-organisation, and local solidarity rather than merely providing technical access. He advocated for frugal connectivity solutions that can work with limited infrastructure, including hybrid physical-digital services that acknowledge real-world constraints.

The IGF Central Africa representative highlighted that infrastructure problems exist at country, regional, and population levels, requiring shared solutions such as regional optical fibre networks and data centres. Multiple speakers emphasised the critical importance of capacity building and training programmes, particularly targeting youth and women in digital technologies and AI.

Audience member Abdelgeril Bacharbon reinforced the importance of capacity building, emphasising that active participation rather than passive consumption should be the goal of digital inclusion efforts.

### Language Diversity and Cultural Preservation in AI

A central concern throughout the discussion was the preservation of French and other Francophone languages in an AI landscape dominated by English-language training data. Professor Tchehouali’s analysis revealed that whilst French represents 6% of internet content, the challenge extends beyond content creation to algorithmic bias in recommendation systems.

Minister Michel noted the practical implications of this bias, observing that voice recognition and AI systems work significantly better in English than in French or African languages. This creates a self-reinforcing cycle where AI systems become increasingly optimised for dominant languages whilst marginalising others.

The concept of “discoverability” emerged as a crucial framework for understanding these challenges. Professor Tchehouali explained that discoverability refers not only to the availability of content online but, more importantly, to the ability of that content to be recommended to users who may not have known of its existence beforehand. This transforms discoverability from a technical issue into what she termed “an eminently political issue, a cultural policy issue.”

Participants discussed various solutions, including the creation of Francophone linguistic databases to train more inclusive AI systems and support for local content creation in multiple languages as both a cultural preservation and job creation strategy. Ambassador Verdier briefly mentioned regulatory approaches, referencing requirements for platforms to invest in local content production.

### Data Governance and Digital Sovereignty

The discussion of data governance revealed sophisticated understanding of the complex challenges facing Francophone countries in the digital age. Minister Michel raised fundamental questions about sovereignty and citizens’ rights protection in the context of massive data collection by international tech companies.

Ambassador Verdier articulated a framework identifying three key aspects of data governance: privacy protection, keeping common knowledge common, and ensuring fair value sharing from data use. He highlighted the particular challenge facing African countries, where data is simultaneously under-exposed (limiting AI development that serves African needs) and at risk of capture by foreign entities.

A particularly insightful contribution came through Ambassador Verdier’s reference to Ghana’s digital minister, who articulated the double bind facing African countries: concerns that insufficient data exposure means AI solutions won’t be developed for African needs, but also risks that opening up data could lead to theft and capture by foreign entities.

A crucial correction to assumptions about African data scarcity came from audience member Emmanuel Empeta, who noted that “Africa has data, but we have a serious problem. It is the low rate of digitisation of this data. State data, public data, cultural data.” This reframed the challenge from data creation to digitisation infrastructure and capacity.

Sébastien Bachelet contributed another perspective on digital sovereignty, highlighting domain name extensions as national digital assets that countries should actively manage and promote.

### Francophone Cooperation and Institutional Response

Throughout the discussion, participants demonstrated broad agreement that individual Francophone countries lack the power to effectively address digital governance challenges alone. The IGF Central Africa representative noted that the Francophone space represents significant global influence if properly coordinated.

Minister Michel provided a moment of candid self-reflection, directly challenging the Francophone community’s own commitment to digital governance: “Sometimes it’s us who pose problems in our Francophone space… I attend international conferences on digital sometimes. So, tell me Verdier, is the French minister in charge of digital always busy? He can come, he can attend these conferences where big decisions are made.” This honest assessment of internal coordination failures elevated the discussion’s realism about what collective action actually requires.

Ambassador Verdier’s historical perspective proved particularly influential, drawing parallels between the origins of Francophonie and current digital challenges. He noted how four major heads of state—Léopold Sédar Senghor, Habib Bourguiba, Hamani Diori, and Norodom Sihanouk—”imposed on France the idea that this French language does not belong to France, that it is something that we have in common.” This historical precedent provided a conceptual framework for approaching digital commons as shared resources rather than national assets.

## Areas of Agreement and Disagreement

### Strong Agreement Areas

The discussion revealed broad alignment across speakers from diverse backgrounds on several key points. All participants agreed that digital inclusion requires more than basic connectivity, necessitating meaningful access that enables empowerment and local innovation. There was general recognition that Francophone countries must work collectively to address digital governance challenges, as individual nations cannot effectively negotiate with major tech companies alone.

Participants also demonstrated strong agreement on the threat posed by AI bias toward English content and the importance of data governance for digital sovereignty. The agreement spanned technical, cultural, and political dimensions, suggesting a mature understanding of digital challenges in the Francophone space.

### Implementation Differences

Whilst participants agreed on fundamental goals, they offered different approaches to specific implementation strategies. The most notable disagreement emerged around ministerial engagement, with Minister Michel directly criticising the frequent absence of Francophone ministers from international digital forums, whilst Ambassador Verdier focused on practical engagement through local innovations rather than addressing the attendance issue directly.

Participants also offered different approaches to addressing AI bias: Minister Michel emphasised creating Francophone linguistic databases, Professor Tchehouali focused on discoverability measures and algorithmic fairness, whilst Ambassador Verdier pointed to regulatory obligations for platforms.

An important disagreement emerged regarding the nature of Africa’s data challenges, with some discussion suggesting Africa lacks sufficient data exposure and infrastructure, whilst audience member Emmanuel Empeta argued that Africa has abundant data but faces digitisation challenges. This disagreement has significant implications for resource allocation and development strategies.

## Thought-Provoking Insights

Several comments during the discussion provided particularly profound insights that shaped the conversation’s direction. Ambassador Verdier’s historical analysis connecting Francophonie’s success to digital commons protection offered a unifying conceptual framework that other speakers referenced. His observation that “we have protected, extended and brought to life a common” provided philosophical grounding for approaching digital governance challenges.

Professor Tchehouali’s introduction of the discoverability concept moved the discussion beyond simple content creation to the sophisticated mechanisms through which cultural dominance operates in digital spaces. Her insight that discoverability is “an eminently political issue, a cultural policy issue” connected technical infrastructure questions to cultural policy in ways that influenced subsequent discussions.

Minister Michel’s candid critique of Francophone coordination failures demonstrated authentic leadership and self-reflection, creating a moment of uncomfortable truth-telling that elevated the discussion’s honesty level. His direct questioning of French participation shifted focus from external challenges to internal accountability.

## Unresolved Challenges and Future Directions

Despite the broad agreement on major goals, several critical issues remain unresolved. Participants did not reach agreement on specific mechanisms for coordinating collective action among Francophone countries with different levels of digital development, nor on concrete funding mechanisms for shared digital infrastructure projects.

Questions remain about how to ensure fair value sharing from data generated in Francophone countries, how to recover and repatriate historical data and archives currently held in other countries, and how to balance digital sovereignty with the need for international cooperation and open standards.

The discussion also left unaddressed the challenge of brain drain of digital talent from Francophone developing countries and specific criteria for determining what constitutes diversified Francophone content for platform obligations.

Several speakers acknowledged limitations and expressed uncertainty about optimal approaches, reflecting the complexity of the challenges rather than presenting overly confident solutions.

## Action Items and Next Steps

The discussion concluded with concrete commitments for continued collaboration. Participants agreed to continue discussions at the upcoming Geneva meeting during the World Summit on Information Society beginning July 7th, with plans to develop strong recommendations on data governance for Francophone countries.

Specific action items identified include creating databases of Francophone linguistic data to train more inclusive AI systems, establishing regional data centres and shared digital infrastructure among Francophone countries, implementing capacity building programmes through initiatives like the OIF’s Déclic programme, and digitising existing cultural, state, and public data archives across Francophone Africa.

Participants also committed to increasing Francophone ministerial presence at international digital conferences and decision-making forums, and developing regulatory frameworks to promote Francophone and local content on digital platforms.

## Conclusion

This roundtable discussion demonstrated the Francophone community’s sophisticated understanding of digital governance challenges and its potential for coordinated response. The conversation successfully moved beyond technical issues to address fundamental questions of power, sovereignty, and collective action in the digital age.

The broad agreement on major challenges, combined with constructive differences on implementation strategies, suggests a foundation for future collaboration. The participants’ ability to engage in honest self-reflection about internal coordination failures, whilst maintaining optimism about collective potential, indicates a mature approach to addressing complex global challenges.

The discussion’s emphasis on historical precedents, particularly Francophonie’s success in creating shared cultural resources, provides a valuable framework for approaching contemporary digital challenges. As participants prepare for continued discussions in Geneva, they carry forward both a clear understanding of the challenges ahead and a demonstrated capacity for the kind of honest, sophisticated dialogue necessary to address them effectively.

The session ultimately reinforced that whilst individual Francophone countries may lack the power to shape global digital governance alone, their collective voice has the potential to meaningfully influence the development of more inclusive, culturally diverse digital futures, provided they can overcome internal coordination challenges and maintain consistent high-level engagement in international forums.

Moderator: … Ok. Dear friends, ladies and gentlemen, welcome. Theoretically, now it works, right? The headphones, you hear me. Welcome to this French-speaking session. Do not hesitate to sit here around the table, since, as you can see, this Studio 6 is one of those who have very large tables. It’s easier and more comfortable to be together. I see that some prefer to keep the distance, but really, do not hesitate. So, welcome to this round table organized by Francophonie, with the aim of exploring quickly the main issues that are related to the current context regarding the governance of digital and artificial intelligence. I think it is not necessary to repeat what has been played out around the World Digital Pact and what is now being discussed within the framework of the World Summit on Information Society which will begin in Geneva on July 7th with the prospect of making proposals, including proposals that will emanate directly from the IGF Forum on Internet Governance where we are now, to… try to make this governance evolve. There are specific issues for the francophone space and it is these issues that we want to evoke, that we want to explore today. Three main themes, the issue of digital inclusion, since as it was also repeated a lot during the various workshops of this IGF, 2.6 billion people today do not have access to the Internet. But beyond this figure, there are all kinds of fractures, forms of digital fractures. There is also an extremely important issue for the francophone space and it will be our second theme on the fact of being able to express oneself in one’s own language. And I’m not talking here only about French. You know that the francophone space includes a large number of languages, a large number of cultures. When artificial, generative intelligences develop, which rely on existing digital data, it is extremely important to know how we will also face this challenge. And finally, of course, the issue of data governance, since it is the raw material from which these artificial intelligences are built. We will address these three points successively. So we have around the table some of our speakers, others are still on their way. And I would like to particularly highlight the presence of His Excellency, Minister Boukar Michel , who is the Minister of Telecommunications. Be careful, I can’t be wrong. No, the Minister of Telecommunications. of the transformation of the administration and of the digital economy. It’s not in the right order, but it’s all there. From the Republic of Chad, who gives us the honor of his presence, to his right, His Excellency, Mr. Ambassador of Digital for France, Henri Verdier, and I think we also have next to us Mr. the coordinator for IGF for Central Africa. And online, he will intervene from Montreal, where he is, Professor Destiny Tchehouali, professor at the University of Quebec in Montreal and specialist on the issues of diversity and discoverability. Our colleague, Mactar Seck, but it’s Mactar who is here. Ah, sorry, I hadn’t seen, because Henri is hiding everyone. So, Mactar is here. No, it’s Michel who is missing, who will join us a little later. Well, let’s go, without further ado, and I will give the floor on this issue of digital inclusion, the challenge that today still represents the fact of being able to connect all our territories, including rural territories. The fact also of giving real access beyond connectivity, that is, to have people who are able to use the tools and develop them in their turn. I will start by giving the floor to Mr. Minister Michel Boukhar, because it is the main project that you are currently carrying out in Chad, isn’t it, Mr. Minister?

Boukar Michel: Thank you, Mr. Henri. Mr. Ambassador in charge of digital, thank you for giving me this opportunity to talk about the theme that was sent to me, towards an evolution of international governance of digital and AI. What are the challenges for the countries of the French-speaking space, inclusion, cultural diversity, linguistics and data governance? I think it’s a very good theme, but the reformulation that I wanted to put at your disposal is towards an evolution of international governance of digital and AI. Challenges for the French-speaking space. What is Francophonie? We need to talk a little about that, which is quite interesting. Around the 1970s, when most African countries began to gain independence, it was a question of maintaining a cultural link with France. This is what led to the creation of the OEF in the 1970s, with the arrival of President Pompidou, who started the creation of the OEF, which is the former cultural and technical cooperation agency. At that time, cooperation was based on culture, education and political relations. But today, the era of digital and AI opens up new perspectives to strengthen these links, while posing new challenges. As Leopold Sedar-Senghor said, Francophonie is not a legacy, it is an adventure to be built. Digital and AI can be powerful tools for this adventure. They are no longer in this world, but we think they have still left us with something interesting that we have to rely on. So, what are the new challenges of digital and artificial intelligence? We are talking about digital inclusion. Despite the progress of many French-speaking countries that still suffer from limited access to the digital, especially in Africa, the OIF has set up a whole arsenal to accompany this country. The Connect Africa program, which is supported by the OIF, aims to develop digital infrastructures, fiber optic networks, internet networks, fiber optics, to promote access to the Internet in rural areas. Access to the Internet is the first condition for populations to benefit from the digital and artificial intelligence. And global access to culture. Today, thanks to the Internet, we can access works of culture from all over the world in a few clicks. Concrete examples. We have on YouTube. You can listen to Congolese music. Watch Senegalese short films. You can discover traditional dances in Vietnam. These contents are often produced locally and find an interesting audience internationally. Social networks such as Instagram or TikTok allow young people to value their culture. We see, for example, African creators using local languages in their videos, which contributes to their recognition. From a cultural-linguistic point of view, what is going to happen? What can the Internet and AI bring us? There are digital technologies, especially AI, which are often developed. in an anglophone context, which threatens cultural and linguistic diversity. A concrete example, vocal recognition works much better in English than in French or in African. What can the OEF do to create a platform that can engage or correct this? The OEF encourages the development of content and digital tools adapted to local and francophone languages, such as Wolof, Bambara, or the Arabic dialect, Otyat, which thus preserves cultural riches. So, what can we do and what can we think of the OEF regarding projects? It is necessary to create a database of francophone linguistic data to train more inclusive AI. This can result in practical examples. Young people in Burkina Faso create, for example, the podcast in French and in Moré to talk about their daily life, their customs, or to discuss social issues. This content is in Africa, but also in France and Canada. It is a revolution. It does not depend on big publishing houses or young people. Everyone can create and publish. The OEF, which is our common space, can work to create this synergy. Regarding the governance of data and digital sovereignty, the massive collection of data raises questions of sovereignty and respect for citizens’ rights. Chad and other francophone countries adopt legislation to protect personal data. Where does the OEF stand? The OEF can fight for an international governance of data that takes into account cultural specificities. and respect for diversity. Finally, we need to talk about international governance, digital and AI, a space to co-construct. The role of international institutions such as the IEF or UNESCO is to promote a more balanced governance that respects all cultures. As a concrete example, the IEF has launched the D2Click program, which trains young French-speakers in digital so that they can become creators of cultural content. But I think the IEF needs to think about this project so that it can reach many French-speaking countries that are not included in this project. For example, in my country, Chad. We need it because this project hasn’t happened yet and I might have the opportunity in Geneva to try to talk to the people in charge so that if you want our space to grow, it can have a significant impact on our French-speaking space, which is totally different from our communities because the origin was first of African countries. The founding father, Oufed Bouyi, Leopold Sedar Senghor and Amani Djouri, were the ones who brought this torch so that we could reach this French-speaking space. But what do we say to the IEF today? We realize that we are a little behind. With the arrival of digital artificial intelligence, we can, through the IEF, regenerate this system that has remained in the bureaucracy with very concrete projects, the IEF with its key-aid program. If we manage them well, we will be able to reach this space. Thank you.

Moderator: Well, at the same time, I let our speakers give their point of view. Once again, the idea is also in the debate that will follow that we can formulate the proposals and expectations that we have for each other in relation to what we can do in common. You said it, Mr. Minister, the Francophones will meet next week in Geneva just before the 20th meeting of the World Summit on Information Society to precisely focus on these issues. But it starts here, it starts now. The debate is on. Mr. Ambassador, you have the floor.

Henri Verdier: Yes, but I’m going to refuse your rule of the game, because Mr. Minister made me want to go back to your words, Mr. Minister. I would say a very small word about inclusivity at the end. I think you are right, infinitely right, to go back to the history of Francophonie and to the Cultural and Technical Cooperation Agency of 1970. And I think you were very kind to quote President Pompidou, because the truth is that four huge heads of state, Leopold Sedar Senghor, Habib Bourguiba, Amani Diori and Norodam Sianouk, imposed on France the idea that this French language does not belong to France, that it is something that we have in common. It is a common, in the sense that we are going to talk about a moment of digital common, that is, everyone has the right to use it, and everyone who uses it has the right to modify it, and it will live from that. And I think that this gesture saved the French language from a certain point of view, because it has enriched itself with its nuances, its creolities. Yesterday, I took a taxi with my Norwegian team, and the driver said to me, « Oh, you are French, Aya Nakamura ! » And he congratulated me on this great French singer, who is Aya Nakamura, here in Norway. This is the world that has been authorized by Francophonie. And I often wondered what should be the main note of digital francophonie, and it might be to remember this story where we have protected, extended and brought to life a common. Because finally, this digital in which we live, which is a bearer of many benefits, it was born as a common. It was born with large transatlantic cables that were co-financed but that belonged to no one. It was born with open standards, the TCPIP protocol, the web. It was born with free content. It was born in a logic of cooperation and extraordinary contribution. And today, it is threatened. It is threatened from all sides. It is threatened from… In English, we say weaponization. I have never found the perfect translation of weaponization. It is threatened… It is turned away from confrontation by a certain number of state powers. It is a privileged playground for some malicious actors. And above all, it is captured by gigantic industrial monopolies. And I think, I say it, that no state, even the United States by the way, is ready to regulate companies that weigh a thousand billion dollars and who now consider themselves as private political actors and who consider that they have the right to weigh on the geopolitical order of the world. We are not ready, conceptually and methodologically. We are progressing and we are progressing fast. But we have never had to face this, except maybe a long time ago with the North Indian Company who tried to control the spice road with the power we know. And besides, the only way the Queen Victoria managed to control the Indian Company was by suppressing the Indian Company. States never succeeded in controlling it. They ended up banning it. And so, I want to leave what you just said, Mr. Minister, and to say that maybe this is our… our origin and our common destiny. There are things that are common and we want them to remain common. Everyone has the right to use them and everyone has the right to contribute. And it’s quite simple in the end because it will serve as a compass on many of the subjects we are going to deal with today. And if I come to inclusivity, first of all, it is unethical to leave almost 2 billion people out of this digital revolution and therefore accessibility in the simplest sense of the term must remain a fundamental priority. We can perhaps enrich this observation with a few ideas because it is not enough to have an optical fiber in your living room. First of all, we can also take a culture of reflection and a somewhat frugal connectivity. I was talking yesterday with my Indian friends who have designed the digital public infrastructures and they told me that we also have to plan physical paths that can hybridize physical and digital so that we can use a digital service with a phone even if we don’t have a connection. It’s possible, we flash something and then we wait to be in front of Wi-Fi to be able to use it. We can put things in the design that take into account the fact that perfect connectivity will not be there tomorrow morning. So people have rights today. To reproduce this culture of frugality we can say that it is not enough to have fiber but that there is a kind of digital infrastructure things like identity, payment on which we need to have a look if we want both people to benefit but also that it is not private property of one or two gigantic companies. So the idea that we need digital public infrastructures, a small layer of public service to be part of a project of connectivity and then of course I often heard about in English but often in the OIF environment meaningful connectivity a connectivity that makes sense. Because it is not enough to be a passive consumer who receives content. This connectivity must be used for emancipation, for self-organization, for local solidarity. And for that, we still need programs to encourage innovators, to support communities, to share capabilities that go with the arrival of Internet access. But I think, and I finish, I say it again, you are right to remember where we come from, and it can really serve as a compass in the fight against digitalization.

Moderator: Thank you very much, dear Henri. And we continue this first round table by giving the floor to Mr. Matarsek, who is the head of the technology and innovation section within the Economic Commission of the United Nations for Africa, based in Addis Ababa, who has a long experience of these issues, who has followed the evolution of the governance model and of each of the priorities that have been mentioned here for a long time, who knows the actors well. So you, in relation to the turning point, so it may be a turning point that is not always perceived, but which, it seems to me, is effective with the adoption of the digital pact, which still means a new role, a slightly different role from that of the States in a process that is specifically intergovernmental. At the same time, a reflection within the multi-actor system here, in particular to see how to adapt to this. How do you see these specific challenges for the French-speaking space?

IGF Central Africa representative: Thank you very much. It is with great pleasure that I participate in this important discussion. on the French-speaking space. How digital, and in particular artificial intelligence, can revolutionize the world of French-speaking, in light of the adoption of the digital pact you just mentioned. And also the role of different actors, international organizations, at the level of the implementation of this digital pact, and especially the role of French-speaking in this space. I remind you that the French-speaking space is a large market, more than a billion people. And I think the GDP represents 16 to 15% of the world GDP, which is extremely important. But we have been confronted for decades with many problems by our French-speaking countries, by the majority of French-speaking countries, in the adaptation and adoption of these digital technologies. First, we mentioned the question of infrastructure. The problem of infrastructure is not only at the country level, but also at the level of the regions, and also at the level of the population. So this problem has existed for a long time. With the objective of the digital pact, to promote connectivity, I think that organizations like Francophonie can work with other organizations to see how to extend the infrastructure at the level of the rural world and at the level of French-speaking countries. This can be done in several ways. I think there is a deficit in optical fiber. Why not group countries together, or regional organizations, to put in place shared optical fiber? Also, the question of data is very important. If French-speaking countries want to master this AI, there is the battle of data, by setting up adequate data centers. And there is also a lack at the level of certain French-speaking countries, and as the Minister said, I think there is room for coordination between French-speaking countries so that we can have regional data centers or data centers for French-speaking countries. And also, the question of infrastructure is not only related to physical infrastructure, there is also the question of electricity, which must not be forgotten. Well, there are different initiatives undertaken by French-speaking countries in this area, but it is also an important problem in these member states. Another point that is needed is regulation, because we need a new form of regulation at the level of this digital technology. And this is where I think that French-speaking countries have an important role with their digital strategies that they have adopted to see how we can help French-speaking countries to take inspiration from practical cases and success stories in other countries to arrive at an adequate regulation of these new technologies, especially AI, blockchain and other emerging technologies. And this leads to a new form of development through the definition of regulation centered on specific approaches. How can we promote innovation? With that, regulation is a point on which I think French-speaking countries have a lot of assets. Another point on which I think it is important is at the level of inclusion. How can these technologies help inclusion at the level of the French-speaking space? It is a space where there are several languages, more than 1,000 languages. Some even say 2,000 languages, but I can give you some examples. For example, take the country of RDC, they have 250 local languages. Countries like Cameroon have 200 languages. Countries like Senegal and the Ivory Coast have between 10 and 15 languages. So it’s a great asset for the continent and for inclusion as well. How can we make use of these local languages, thanks to the IAEA, as a tool for development in the French-speaking space? In terms of content development, Francophonie is making a lot of effort to support the development of local content. And I think that the IAEA is a way for Francophonie to achieve this local content development, which will not only create added value for the population, but also create jobs. Because in these countries, the number of young people is extremely high, thanks to these technologies, we can create a lot of jobs for these young people. Research and development. It is very important that we support research and development. This is the missing piece. And so that we can make our own IAEA tools in French-speaking Africa, people need to be able to promote research and development. And I think that Francophonie has an important role to play, given your progress in countries like France, Belgium, and Canada. We need to help promote this research and development in the French-speaking space, so that the majority of French-speakers can develop their own IAEA tools. And also the skills. There are a lot of initiatives at the level of Francophonie on the development of free software. But with the era of information technology, we need to train more young people in these new technologies, in the IAEA. And this is where Francophonie has an important role to play. Of course, Francophonie cannot do everything. So we will have to work with multilateral and bilateral organizations to see how we can contribute, to make aids so that the aid can have more impact in these French-speaking countries. For the moment, I will stop there, and I think that the problem of inclusion in the language is extremely important. We have seen in the IGF that the French-speaking presence is not high, and we need to do something. ELIA is here to help. Thank you.

Moderator: Thank you, thank you very much. We will come back to this, indeed, but let’s continue on the question of language and diversity. And now I will switch briefly to English, because we are going to invite our colleague Destiny, and it’s in order that the technics can know that they have to connect him. So, we are going to cross the Atlantic to go and meet Professor Destiny Tchehouali. Destiny, can you hear me?

Destiny Tchehouali: Yes, Mr. Ambassador, I can hear you perfectly. We can see you, but we can’t hear you. Ah, we can hear you, we can hear you in the headphones, of course. Of course. OK, great. Welcome. Thank you, thank you very much for being among us. It is still early in Montreal, but I can see you bravely there. So, you heard that this issue of diversity, of this excellent, brilliant heritage, and at the same time, perhaps overwhelming, in relation to the issue of artificial intelligence, arises. What are your thoughts on this? Thank you, Your Excellency, Mr. Ambassador Henry. Hello to everyone. Your Excellency, Mr. Minister, Your Excellency, Ambassador, distinguished panelists and participants. I regret not being with you in person, but I feel very privileged to be able to take part in this discussion, in this consultation, I would say, which is very precious for Francophonie. So, in relation to all the previous exchanges and to the question you are asking me, dear Henry, I would simply like to bounce back on the fact that we are all concerned about the very rapid evolution of digital technologies, which are literally disrupting the way we access our French-speaking content online, our cultures, our languages, in the digital environment. And if until now we were happy with the fact that French is still the fourth language on the Internet, with about 6% of content behind English, which is about 30% or so, Chinese, Spanish, we can still continue to worry about a certain urgency to act, because we realize that the web, the digital environment, the cyberspace, do not spontaneously generate diversity. And access to diversity is ultimately due to an issue that we had named here in Quebec an issue of discoverability. which, by the way, has already been well re-appropriated elsewhere in the Francophonie. And discoverability, what does it refer to? It ultimately refers to the availability of our content in their online presence, but above all, to the ability to be recommended this content, especially when we did not know its existence beforehand. Basically, it just comes down to the question of knowing, and I admit that it is also a question of inclusion, it is to know, but a content that I did not know, what is the probability that I can discover it, access it, among these 6% of Francophone content available online, for example. And this is where we emphasize the importance of activating levers of governance, because discoverability is an eminently political issue, a cultural policy issue, and it is important to be able to work together, both public decision-makers, politicians, but also platform owners, civil society, digital actors as a whole, to find adequate solutions to optimize this discoverability. Because the threat currently, and Ambassador Henri Verdier highlighted it, there is a threat. The threat today is precisely that of everything we have considered as acquired over the past few years, acquired as a result of long battles in terms of promotion and preservation of cultural and linguistic diversity, but which are today totally threatened because we have algorithms, for example, of recommendation of digital platforms, which tend to promote, to put more forward and to make more visible content other than Francophone. I will simply finish in this first part, and to reconnect with the dimension of inclusion and accessibility. on the need, more than ever, to be able to put in place measures, rules. It is very important to be able to agree, as a Francophone, on the criteria necessary to determine what constitutes or not diversified French-speaking content, so in different languages that characterize Francophonie, to know in what proportion, as a government, we would like platforms to put forward what quantity, what proportion of national content they could put forward when they offer distribution and distribution services on our territories, and, of course, to reduce bias and discrimination, which are both linguistic but also a lot technological, by improving these automated recommendation systems, especially in the era of artificial intelligence. That’s it. I’ll stop there, and I’m sure we’ll go deeper into other considerations, always in line with these questions. Thank you.

Moderator: Thank you very much. Thank you, Destiny. We’ll come back to you in a moment, but I would like, for my part, to go a little bit deeper into the question of data governance, because we’ve talked about inclusion, diversity, you’ve talked about it in your respective introductions, but the issue of data governance remains a subject that is still very poorly defined. The actor and producer Joseph Gordon-Levitt, who spoke at the opening of this IGF on Tuesday morning, said, but we have entered a situation where we are used to the fact that companies, these digital minotaurs, feed off our data, and it seems almost impossible today to change the rules. It seems almost impossible to tell them, but listen, these are our data, they can only be used on certain conditions, with remuneration, they cannot be used in certain cases, and these data are fundamental in relation to all the elements you have mentioned. to be able to manage them, we still find ourselves in a situation of dependence and a difficulty in building a digital offering, because that is still the issue. For my part, I am used to explaining, and I know that we share this point of view with Henri Verdier, to explain to my European colleagues that they do not realize that they are today actors colonized by other digital actors, and that it is essential to have a mastery of data. Do you think that this can be changed? And do you think that in the context where we are now, both the geopolitical context but also the decision-making framework that is being announced, with notably a debate within the General Assembly of the United Nations on the dialogue for the IAEA and on the architecture of the governance model, in December, is there something to do? Are the Francophones, and perhaps others, the Hispanophones, the Lusophones, others, still mobilizing on this issue of data governance? I will perhaps give the floor to Ambassador Verdier, and then we will go to Mr. Seck, who will finish with Mr. Minister and Destiny.

Henri Verdier: I will be very brief, because in the end we are largely consensual, so I will be content to push some additional ideas, knowing that we agree on the heart. I stay for a moment on the discoverability, just to say that the speech was eloquent. We have also heard that the Francophone content makes up 6% of the web content. We have a problem, it is that there is both a problem of discoverability, but also a problem of offer, and a problem of accessibility, and they are linked. And I think we have to work together. The more people will access the web, the more requests will be in French, the more content in French, the more we will find them, and the more we will fight for discoverability. All this can make a virtuous circle. I was checking there. In France, for example, only three years ago, it’s late, we took our responsibilities and we decided that Netflix was an audiovisual service like the others and that they had obligations to produce in French. And so now Netflix is obliged by law to invest in the production of cinema in French. And televisions already had these obligations. It was normal to extend the obligation and everyone is fine with it, including Netflix, by the way. On your question on data, yes, it’s very important. The problem, first of all, is that there are many places where we talk about data governance without always specifying it very well. So I want to share with you the idea that for me there are three issues in data governance. First of all, of course, there is the protection of private life and, moreover, we could say of all legal secrets. Because private life is a legal secret, but industrial property is another, national security is a third. There are a number of secrets that we have decided to protect by law and that must remain protected in the digital world. The second is what I said in the introduction, what was common must remain common. We still see that there are movements to capture the knowledge that we had in common in humanity. So artificial intelligence, since we are talking about it, it’s not that they steal our data, but if they build the only highway to access the data and if we don’t have open artificial intelligence or in French and we have to take the little mountain path, it’s as if there had been capture of knowledge. So this idea that we have the obligation to be certain that there will be an equality in access to knowledge and information, it is very important and it is also a subject of data governance. And then the third is the sharing of value. Because in fact we are told, the more you circulate data, the more value will be created. Which is true. One in the other, the more people are looking to do things with data, the more value will be created. But the question is, where will the value be created? And will it be? create, for example, or will it fall back in the countries where the data comes from? This is a real question. And on that, I finish with that. You know that we had, a few months ago, the summit for action on AI in Paris, and we had the privilege to set up a small dialogue session with a dozen African digital ministers, but you were not there, Mr. Minister, and with a dozen start-ups. And I heard something extremely important. It was Mr. Sam George, the digital minister of Ghana, who said that Africa has a double problem. As you can see, it’s not just Francophonie. We have a double problem. First of all, our data is not enough exposed, and so we are not sure that the people who develop solutions with AI will find solutions for us. But secondly, if we manufacture the data and if we open them up, there is also a risk that we will be stolen and captured, and that we will dominate our economy. And he said, in fact, we should design the African infrastructure for exposing African data. So find a way to have large public infrastructures by saying that African data is there. Come, it’s easy, you can use it, you can innovate, but you can’t capture them and privatize them for your profit, because it’s a public infrastructure, and continental and intergovernmental, and so there are rules of the game, and you can question these databases, but you can’t steal them. I think it’s a path that really deserves to be explored, and that the French-speaking space should mobilize to contribute with Smart Africa and others to this reflection.

Moderator: Thank you very much. Yes, Jovan Kurbalija, who many of you know, the director of the Diplo Foundation, explained yesterday that for him, the issue, indeed, is far beyond the data today, it is the issue of knowledge. Until then, knowledge was a public monopoly, it was the object of considerable public investment, and of a work that put in the foreground infrastructures and public research, and today, It is a field that is largely captured by the private sector through the digital industry. Is this also your point of view, Mr. Sec?

IGF Central Africa representative: Yes, he is perfectly right. And I also agree with Ambassador on his reflection on data. Because data goes beyond sovereignty. It is also linked to digital sovereignty. Without data, without the mastery of your data, you do not have digital sovereignty in the current world. And the majority of the Francophone countries in Africa face these difficulties of data governance and above all of data creation. Because in general, we don’t have a lot of data on the continent. We can’t go and get the data. You can take an example. You go to any country and you ask for a data. Compared to three institutions, it is not the same thing. It is not the same number they give you. On the population, someone gives you a number, another gives you a different number. On the GDP, the same thing. On inflation. In fact, it is the same in France. There are three ministries that have three… When you ask them how many there are municipalities in France, they have three different answers. And if you don’t have the right data, you can’t build a policy. You can’t build an adequate and sustainable development plan. So we need first of all the battle to have correct data. That’s one. Two, we will have to be able to master our data and govern the data. This is extremely important. Who needs data? What data is public? What data is not public? How will people use our data? Especially in terms of privacy protection. This is extremely important. Unfortunately, this is not the case in several countries. In Francophonie in Africa, there is a problem with privacy data protection. The second point, when we manage to do good governance, is how we are going to do the data market. How to structure this data market? How can these data help to create added value, to create more jobs, especially for the younger generation? How can these data allow the government to set up development policies in the future with adequate data? And this is where I think that Francophonie has an important role to play in terms of data governance in the Francophone space. A single country cannot do data governance because we are in an open space. We need regional assemblies and blocs like Francophonie to develop a framework for data governance where everyone will see their interest. Because the data is on Facebook, it’s on Amazon, it’s on Google. Not a single country can negotiate with Google. It’s not possible. Francophonie will have to play this role, with other organizations of course, to be able to help Francophone countries to discuss, to have the necessary level of information. We don’t have it yet.

Moderator: I will go again to Montreal in order to have Destiny’s view on this question. And then, Mr. Minister, I would also like to ask you to give your point of view. Because when Mr. Sec tells us that it is important for Francophonie and other organizations to act, these organizations are intergovernmental. So it is the will of the States that must manifest itself through it. And so we also need, of course, collectively, that our governments, that our ministers, get involved in this direction. Is Destiny here? Ok, go ahead my dear Destiny.

Destiny Tchehouali: Thank you. Indeed, the issue of data governance is just as crucial when we talk about digital sovereignty, data sovereignty, but also cultural sovereignty. You know, data governance today is a major geopolitical issue that is redefining the power relations between states and technological companies, technological giants. And particularly in the context of the development of AI, what is worrying is to see the effects at the level of training models. We know that the centrality of data, for example, in the AI ecosystem sometimes induces bias because it is the raw material, it is the input, it is the raw material necessary for the operation of models. And if they are not well accompanied, if they are not mastered, sometimes also depending on the location issues of these data, and obviously it has an impact on the exploitation of all the potential. And training data, when we talk about AI, these are works on which we focus at the level of our research of Quebec on AI and French-speaking digital. They are very important to take into account when we talk about machine learning, to learn from the algorithm, to learn and to detect models or to predict, for example, results, to recommend content when it comes to discoverability. All this is done on the basis of data that are etiquetted, on the basis of metadata, of reference processes, etc. And which ultimately also creates links between these different layers of data. And where there are risks today, if I take the example of the field of automatic translation, we realize that AI models are often trained mainly on Anglophone data or Anglophone corpus. And so the languages ​​said to have low resources are not taken into account enough. There are unequal performances at the level of the results of these models and these processes, for example, of automatic translation. And so, once again, it challenges the need to have regulatory and strategic answers. And once again, these answers must not be isolated. Of course, the issue of sovereignty can be national, but clearly, in relation to AI, to the world giants of AI, the regulatory frameworks to be built must also be made, especially on the issue of data governance, for example, on a much more multilateral scale, in particular.

Moderator: Merci, merci beaucoup Destiny. Comme promis, Monsieur le Ministre, je reviens vers vous. Alors, sur cette question de la gouvernance des données, peut-on envisager une initiative commune de ou des ministres, on peut rêver, de l’ensemble des ministres de l’espace francophone, pour porter le dossier et pour attendre, bien sûr, de votre organisation, de l’OIF, mais aussi des organisations internationales concernées, qu’elles portent vraiment le sujet.

Boukar Michel: Merci beaucoup. Moi, je vais sauter un peu sur les dites de l’ambassadeur Verdier et de Seck. Quelquefois, c’est nous-mêmes qui posons problème dans notre espace francophone. Je crois que la francophonie, comme disait, je citais le Paul Sédar, Senghor, la francophonie c’est pas un héritage, mais c’est une aventure. Et cette aventure tombe à pic avec l’arrivée de l’internet et de numérique et de l’intelligence artificielle. Donc, on doit saisir cette aventure-là pour faire de la francophonie un espace solide. J’assiste quelquefois à des conférences internationales sur le numérique. Alors, dites-moi Verdier, est-ce que le ministre en charge du numérique de la France est toujours occupé ? Il peut venir, il peut assister quand même à ces conférences où il y a des grandes décisions qui se prennent. Par exemple, sur le pacte numérique, ils sont toujours absents. In 2030, I think that the countries that speak French will have about 600 million inhabitants. You can’t imagine this international language of communication, which makes us rich, which is a culture for us. We are always absent. We are proud to be Francophones. And the arrival of digital and artificial intelligence is an opportunity for this space. But to succeed, we need a solid consultation. Leaving politics aside, that’s something else. But it is still this privileged Francophone space that can lead us to go further. We can’t go and steal data from GAFT, Google and others without a solid consultation. Sometimes that can lead us to arbitrariness. And to go to arbitrariness, we still need to put in place all these countries in charge of the Francophone space, which manages the digital to defend the file. Data-based governance is also a culture. And this culture requires a really dense consultation in our spaces to move forward. So how do we do it? That’s where it seems to be interesting. In some countries, they have datacenters that already host data. In other countries, they are building. How do we make sure that in each country or in each area of Francophonie, we can host data? The United States has how many? They have about 2,500 datacenters. How many countries are there in Africa? China, Europe, France. How many are there? I don’t know, about 250 or 300 datacenters. But how can we build trust in the francophone space? Because it’s about data. And when it comes to data, there is cultural data, there is protection data that is needed. Today, the arrival of AI can lead us to think about something extraordinary. Do you think it’s normal that our politicians, thanks to artificial intelligence, find their data imaged on the internet? What should we do? What should we decide? We can already start thinking about our francophone space to be a little bit ahead. Because the anglophones are very advanced, and we are not. We leave aside everything we want to decide together. We are here on small battles. And then, now that there is something interesting, we must also say to ourselves, our founding fathers had a vision. They gave us a heritage, but this heritage is shrinking. We have to start thinking about how to consolidate it. I have finished. Thank you.

Moderator: Thank you, Mr. Minister. It gives us a great desire to continue the debate next week, since we will have two full days in Geneva on this discussion, this specifically francophone discussion, in the presence of all the speakers who participate in this debate, including Professor Chewaly, who will also be in Geneva, and many others. So, if you are not yet registered in this forum, you have 24 hours to do so. You can follow it online if you do not come to the World Summit on the Society of Information, if you are not in Geneva at this time. I now give the floor to the room. If you have questions, questions, comments, do not hesitate, you know how it works here in Oslo. You have to go to the microphone that is there on your left, near the screen. Maybe there is one on the right. Yes, I see one on the right too, perfect. Go ahead, sir.

Audience: OK, thank you very much. I am Mr. Abdelgeril Bacharbon. I am from Chad, coordinator of IJF Chad, at the same time president of House of Africa. So we thank you above all for these high-level panels, including high personalities with different perspectives. We thank you for this opportunity and also to the IJF for the organization. As a member of the community, here in the room, I see a lot of elders who are here. Sébastien here. We have been in the ecosystem for a long time, so we learn a lot from them. They have been coaching us, pushing us, even if before, the Francophone was not there. And there was a great void, whether at the level of the IJF ecosystem, whether at the level of ICANN, whether at the level of the IJF here, that now the Francophone is back. Before, it was with Emmanuel, the representative of the IJF at the level of Latin America, who did a great job with the call of the Francophone government, with the reinforcement of capacities at the level of Africa. If the Francophonie was there, we would not have arrived where there are problems in Africa too, because there was a community behind it. So thank you again for your return. My suggestion is much more the reinforcement of capacities. I think the ministers have spoken here. It is very important to train our new generation on artificial intelligence, and above all to push the start-upers. to create, to support them. Because, as we say in Africa, they cannot applaud. But when we are together, as you said here, we are almost at 1 billion, let’s say 500, 600 million. So I think it is very important to push and especially the content, the creation of content. So when we see them, everything is in English here. So we have a lot of difficulties. There are certain sessions that we go to, we don’t even remember. So I think we are there, presence, but there is no active presence. To be there and not to be active is not good. And especially with the new trend, it is the WSIS, all these topics. And I think we are promoting Francophonie and we would like that on the national level too, that there will be these topics, these discussions, so that we go up. So for me, it is the strengthening of the capacities, especially of women’s youth, and it is very important that we are involved in this global Internet governance. So I thank you.

Moderator: Thank you very much. Another question over there. We will take all the questions, at least a reasonable number, and then give the floor to our speakers so that they can answer. I beg you, sir.

Audience: You receive me, yes. I am Nicole Baibé-Kennedy. I am from Chad. I am the Director of Electronic Communications at the Ministry of Telecommunications, Digital Economy and Digitalization of the Public Administration. So, the subject and theme that is really worth thinking about today and laying the foundations for the development of IA, whether it is global, regional or sub-regional. Specifically, we are on a platform of Francophonie. So I congratulate the panelists for being up to the standards that we all here are trying to live up to. My question is about AI. This is a very new field and it requires us to change our traditional ways in order to adapt and go towards digital inclusion so that the entire terrestrial population can be at the same level. This is where culture must pave the way. I would like to ask a question. Why is it that, generally speaking, books are often translated into English, especially French-language documents? Why do we let them be translated? What is the motivation and how can we frame this system? Thank you.

Moderator: Thank you. There is another question in the room to my left. If there are other questions in the room, thank you for speaking up right away. There is also a question online. So this question in the room, the online question, and then the floor to the speakers. Please, sir.

Audience: Thank you very much, Sébastien Bachelet from France, representing the European users. First of all, thank you for having a session in French. I think that when we are in an international structure like the IGF, there should be a lot more possibilities to exchange in different languages. and that there is only one room, it’s a bit of a shame. I wanted to support what my friend Abdejadir Bacharbong from Chad said. The return of Francophonie here, as he said, is absolutely important and essential. We need you, we need you in structures like here, like ICANN, because without you it’s difficult to make the voice of the French language be heard. And not the voice of France, but the voice of the French language. And I would like you to think about something around the digital, is that you have a treasure in each of your countries. And the treasure is the extension, the domain name, the country code, as they say in English, so the extension of your country. And I think there are things to do around that, which would allow to develop, on the one hand, the uses, and also the control, in quotes, of the data in your country, in your countries. And so I think it would be worth it to have a reflection around that. There is an international college at AFNI that manages the .fr, which can be a good place for this discussion to take place. And if you need a reflection on this subject, I am also at your disposal. Thank you very much.

Moderator: Okay, and now I go to the technics, because we have someone online, it seems. Question online. Does it work? Yes, it works. Bonjour. Okay, bonjour. On l’entend.

Audience: Hello, ladies and gentlemen. Hello, Ambassador Emoso. I am Sidi Kabubaka Nondishao, from Alexandria at the University of Senghor, University of French Languages at the African Development Service, direct operator of Francophonie. And I would like, by the way, to convey my greetings to the Rector, Professor Thierry Verdel, who should also be connected, but due to agenda issues, he could not be here. It is very interesting, everything I heard this afternoon, and I would like to congratulate the various speakers. And I would like to point out that a lot of calls have been made on digital governance. And I would like that, following this great dialogue that we will have in a few days, that we can really take action in the respective countries of Francophonie. Earlier, a colleague spoke of capacity enhancement. I would like to remind you that Francophonie, through the direction of Francophonie économique et numérique, has launched a large initiative of training on Internet governance through the Déclic program. And the University of Senghor in Alexandria had the chance to be able to pilot this training for the benefit of French-speaking diplomats, as well as members of the National Assembly. And we would like and we think that this kind of training should continue in the entire French-speaking space. And today, the University of Senghor has the privilege of hosting what is called the Diplomatic Class of the University of Senghor, which has been organized since early 2021. We are in the fourth edition. And during this Diplomatic Class, we have brought together several French-speaking diplomats from different countries to participate in the issues of Francophonie and on the occasion of this Diplomatic Class. We are going to come back to the issues of digital governance and the issues of artificial intelligence. To tell you that the OIF, through all its organs, is putting the plug in to allow all French-speaking citizens to do better. to be able to learn more about digital governance. And I would like to finish my speech by inviting all French-speaking countries to take action, because there are a lot of facts that often seem to be announcements that have been made in different forums. And it is time today that we can take action, that we can synergize our energies, our resources, so that we can, as French-speakers, really weigh all our weight in the governance of the Internet and digital. I hope to be among you here in July, if I have my visa to come. Thank you very much.

Moderator: Thank you, thank you very much. So, we have very, very little time. We have two minutes left. So, I’ll give you, sir, the floor quickly, but really in 10 seconds, if you like, 15 seconds, to still give each of the speakers 30 seconds for one last word. But we understood that the conclusion was a rendezvous in Geneva. I beg you.

Audience: May I speak? Yes, yes, go ahead. Thank you very much. I am Emmanuel Empeta, member of the National Assembly of the Democratic Republic of Congo. I heard here that Africa has a problem with data. I can say yes and no. No. Why? Because I think that Africa has data. We have data, but we have a serious problem. It is the low rate of digitization of this data. State data, public data, cultural data. Africa has a lot of data and is facing a serious problem of digitization. And I would take this opportunity to ask Francophonie to be able to help African Francophones to be able to digitize the data. Today, the infrastructure is there and we are invaded, we are invaded, as it has been said here, by anglophone data. And my plea would be to ask Francophonie to be able to see to what extent we can help Africa to be able to digitize these data. That was my contribution. Thank you.

Moderator: Very important contribution. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And I will quickly, but very quickly, you only have a handful of seconds each, or at least those who wish to say a word, if you wish. Mr. Minister, Mr. Verdier, Mr. Seck. Yes, who? Go ahead. Mr. Seck.

Boukar Michel: Thank you very much. I think that, as you said, the meeting will be in Paris and I think that we will come out with a very strong recommendation, especially at the level of data governance for the Francophone countries. Thank you.

Moderator: Thank you. In Geneva, I think. OK, Henri.

Henri Verdier: So, yes, the data exists, but we need the information systems, and therefore the digital transformation of the State is a major issue to make them interoperable, exploitable, etc. Yes, the Union is doing its best, and Europe has taken it to its limits because it took European texts to impose rules on men and women, and otherwise it was able to boycott France, Spain or Germany. It was not big enough to get them to step back. And thirdly, yes, there is a subject of innovation in the French language, and I would like to emphasize the fact that we can also engage in the battle with small innovations, to solve real problems in one’s country, for one’s agriculture, for one’s hospital system. It is also a way of entering and weighing in the digital revolution.

Moderator: Mr. Minister.

IGF Central Africa representative: Well, I would just like to link myself to the others. I think that David Dubité has spoken. We have a lot of data, with the arrival of AI and the Internet. Numeracy is not artificial intelligence, so I think that Francophonie can already start to think about how to accompany our states to digitize first all the documents, the archives. And then there are some countries that have gone through a lot of time in the war. How to recover this data? There are some data that are also in France. How to recover them to bring them to France or Africa? These data must be released. My father already had his bank, we called it the Mathelem bank, which is housed in France. So how do we bring all this back to think about other things? Very quickly, Kennedy talked about why books are so hard. I always write my books in French. Francophonie has never paid me. I always write my books in French, but given the importance of the documents, my books are automatically translated into English. I don’t even ask for them. Thank you.

Agreement points

Digital inclusion requires more than basic connectivity – meaningful access and capacity building are essential

Speakers

– Boukar Michel
– Henri Verdier
– IGF Central Africa representative
– Audience

Arguments

Connect Africa program aims to develop digital infrastructures and fiber optic networks to promote internet access in rural areas

Meaningful connectivity requires more than just access – it must enable emancipation, self-organization, and local solidarity

Infrastructure problems exist at country, regional, and population levels, requiring shared solutions like regional optical fiber and data centers

Capacity building and training programs are essential, particularly for youth and women in digital technologies and AI

Summary

All speakers agree that digital inclusion goes beyond simply providing internet access and requires comprehensive infrastructure development, meaningful connectivity that empowers users, and extensive capacity building programs

Topics

Development | Human rights | Infrastructure

Francophone countries must work collectively to address digital governance challenges and cannot succeed individually

Speakers

– Boukar Michel
– Henri Verdier
– IGF Central Africa representative
– Audience

Arguments

Need for solid consultation among Francophone countries to defend digital interests collectively

Individual countries cannot negotiate effectively with tech giants – need collective Francophone action

Francophone countries need to move from announcements to concrete action and resource synergy

Summary

There is strong consensus that individual Francophone countries lack the power to effectively negotiate with major tech companies and address digital governance challenges alone, requiring coordinated collective action

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Economic | Sociocultural

AI systems exhibit significant bias toward English/Anglophone content, threatening linguistic and cultural diversity

Speakers

– Boukar Michel
– Destiny Tchehouali
– IGF Central Africa representative

Arguments

Voice recognition and AI systems work much better in English than in French or African languages

French represents only 6% of internet content, with threats from AI systems predominantly trained on English data

AI poses risks to privacy and cultural representation, requiring new forms of regulation

Summary

All speakers acknowledge that current AI systems demonstrate clear bias toward English language content and Anglophone data, creating unequal performance and threatening the preservation of Francophone linguistic and cultural diversity

Topics

Sociocultural | Legal and regulatory

Data governance is crucial for digital sovereignty and requires protection of both privacy and cultural heritage

Speakers

– Boukar Michel
– Henri Verdier
– IGF Central Africa representative
– Audience

Arguments

Massive data collection raises questions of sovereignty and citizens’ rights protection

Three key aspects: privacy protection, keeping common knowledge common, and ensuring fair value sharing

African data is both under-exposed and at risk of capture by foreign entities

Africa has abundant data but faces serious digitization challenges for state, public, and cultural data

Summary

There is unanimous agreement that data governance is fundamental to digital sovereignty, requiring protection of privacy rights, prevention of data capture by foreign entities, and ensuring that data benefits originating communities

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights | Development

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers draw on the historical success of Francophonie in creating shared cultural resources and argue that this model should be applied to digital technologies and AI to preserve and strengthen cultural diversity

Speakers

– Boukar Michel
– Henri Verdier

Arguments

AI can be a powerful tool for cultural preservation and development if properly managed

Digital commons must remain common, drawing from Francophonie’s historical success in making French a shared language

Topics

Sociocultural | Legal and regulatory

Both emphasize the critical importance of building local technical capacity and research capabilities to enable Francophone countries to develop their own digital solutions rather than remaining dependent on foreign technologies

Speakers

– IGF Central Africa representative
– Audience

Arguments

Research and development support is crucial for Francophone countries to develop their own AI tools

Capacity building and training programs are essential, particularly for youth and women in digital technologies and AI

Topics

Development | Economic

Both speakers advocate for regulatory measures that require digital platforms to actively promote and make discoverable local and diverse content, rather than allowing algorithmic bias to favor dominant languages

Speakers

– Henri Verdier
– Destiny Tchehouali

Arguments

Digital platforms should have obligations to promote national and diverse content, similar to Netflix’s French production requirements

Need for discoverability measures to ensure Francophone content can be found and recommended online

Topics

Sociocultural | Legal and regulatory

Unexpected consensus

The need for frugal and hybrid digital solutions that work with limited infrastructure

Speakers

– Henri Verdier
– IGF Central Africa representative

Arguments

Need for frugal connectivity solutions that can work with limited infrastructure, including hybrid physical-digital services

Infrastructure problems exist at country, regional, and population levels, requiring shared solutions like regional optical fiber and data centers

Explanation

It’s unexpected that a French ambassador and an African regional representative would both emphasize the importance of designing digital solutions that accommodate infrastructure limitations rather than waiting for perfect connectivity. This pragmatic approach shows consensus on realistic, adaptive technology deployment strategies

Topics

Development | Infrastructure

The historical parallel between Francophonie’s success and digital commons protection

Speakers

– Henri Verdier
– Boukar Michel

Arguments

Digital commons must remain common, drawing from Francophonie’s historical success in making French a shared language

AI can be a powerful tool for cultural preservation and development if properly managed

Explanation

The unexpected consensus lies in both speakers independently drawing on the same historical reference point – how Francophonie succeeded by making French a shared common resource – and applying this model to digital governance. This shows remarkable alignment in their conceptual framework despite their different roles

Topics

Sociocultural | Legal and regulatory

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion reveals strong consensus across all speakers on four main areas: the need for meaningful digital inclusion beyond basic connectivity, the necessity of collective Francophone action in digital governance, the threat posed by AI bias toward English content, and the critical importance of data governance for digital sovereignty

Consensus level

High level of consensus with remarkable alignment across speakers from different backgrounds (government ministers, diplomats, academics, civil society). The consensus suggests a mature understanding of digital challenges in the Francophone space and points toward concrete collaborative actions, particularly the upcoming Geneva meetings. The agreement spans technical, cultural, and political dimensions, indicating potential for effective coordinated policy responses

Different viewpoints

Presence and engagement of Francophone ministers at international digital forums

Speakers

– Boukar Michel
– Henri Verdier

Arguments

Francophone ministers should be more present at international digital conferences and decision-making forums

Small innovations solving local problems can be an entry point into the digital revolution

Summary

Minister Michel directly criticizes the frequent absence of Francophone ministers (particularly mentioning France’s digital minister) at crucial international conferences, while Ambassador Verdier focuses on practical engagement through local innovations rather than addressing the attendance issue

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Sociocultural

Unexpected differences

Nature of Africa’s data problem

Speakers

– IGF Central Africa representative
– Audience

Arguments

Individual countries cannot negotiate effectively with tech giants – need collective Francophone action

Africa has abundant data but faces serious digitization challenges for state, public, and cultural data

Explanation

This disagreement is unexpected because both speakers are advocating for African digital development, but they fundamentally disagree on the root problem. The IGF representative suggests Africa lacks sufficient data exposure and infrastructure, while the audience member argues Africa has plenty of data but lacks digitization capabilities. This disagreement has significant implications for resource allocation and development strategies

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion shows remarkable consensus on major goals (digital inclusion, cultural preservation, collective action) with disagreements primarily on implementation strategies and problem diagnosis. The main areas of disagreement involve: ministerial engagement levels, specific technical solutions for data governance, and the fundamental nature of Africa’s data challenges

Disagreement level

Low to moderate disagreement level. The speakers share common objectives but differ on tactical approaches and problem identification. This suggests a strong foundation for collaboration with need for more detailed coordination on implementation strategies. The disagreements are constructive and focus on ‘how’ rather than ‘whether’ to address the challenges, which is positive for future cooperation in Francophone digital governance

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers draw on the historical success of Francophonie in creating shared cultural resources and argue that this model should be applied to digital technologies and AI to preserve and strengthen cultural diversity

Speakers

– Boukar Michel
– Henri Verdier

Arguments

AI can be a powerful tool for cultural preservation and development if properly managed

Digital commons must remain common, drawing from Francophonie’s historical success in making French a shared language

Topics

Sociocultural | Legal and regulatory

Both emphasize the critical importance of building local technical capacity and research capabilities to enable Francophone countries to develop their own digital solutions rather than remaining dependent on foreign technologies

Speakers

– IGF Central Africa representative
– Audience

Arguments

Research and development support is crucial for Francophone countries to develop their own AI tools

Capacity building and training programs are essential, particularly for youth and women in digital technologies and AI

Topics

Development | Economic

Both speakers advocate for regulatory measures that require digital platforms to actively promote and make discoverable local and diverse content, rather than allowing algorithmic bias to favor dominant languages

Speakers

– Henri Verdier
– Destiny Tchehouali

Arguments

Digital platforms should have obligations to promote national and diverse content, similar to Netflix’s French production requirements

Need for discoverability measures to ensure Francophone content can be found and recommended online

Topics

Sociocultural | Legal and regulatory

Key takeaways

The Francophone space represents over 1 billion people and 15-16% of global GDP, giving it significant potential influence in digital governance if properly coordinated

Digital inclusion requires more than just connectivity – it needs meaningful access that enables emancipation, local innovation, and cultural preservation

French content represents only 6% of internet content, and AI systems are predominantly trained on English data, threatening Francophone cultural and linguistic diversity

Individual Francophone countries cannot effectively negotiate with tech giants alone – collective action through organizations like OIF is essential

Data governance involves three key aspects: privacy protection, keeping common knowledge accessible, and ensuring fair value sharing from data use

Africa has abundant data but faces serious digitization challenges, particularly for state, public, and cultural archives

The digital commons must remain common, drawing lessons from Francophonie’s historical success in making French a shared rather than exclusively French language

Capacity building and training programs, especially for youth and women, are crucial for meaningful participation in the digital economy

Resolutions and action items

Continue discussions at the upcoming Geneva meeting during the World Summit on Information Society (July 7th)

Develop strong recommendations on data governance for Francophone countries at the Geneva meeting

Create databases of Francophone linguistic data to train more inclusive AI systems

Establish regional data centers and shared digital infrastructure among Francophone countries

Implement capacity building programs through initiatives like the OIF’s Déclic program

Digitize existing cultural, state, and public data archives across Francophone Africa

Increase Francophone ministerial presence at international digital conferences and decision-making forums

Develop regulatory frameworks requiring digital platforms to promote Francophone and local content

Unresolved issues

How to effectively coordinate collective action among Francophone countries with different levels of digital development

Specific mechanisms for ensuring fair value sharing from data generated in Francophone countries

How to recover and repatriate historical data and archives currently held in other countries

Concrete funding mechanisms for shared digital infrastructure projects

How to balance digital sovereignty with the need for international cooperation and open standards

Specific criteria for determining what constitutes diversified Francophone content for platform obligations

How to address the brain drain of digital talent from Francophone developing countries

Suggested compromises

Hybrid physical-digital service models that can function with limited connectivity infrastructure

Regional rather than purely national approaches to data centers and digital infrastructure

Graduated obligations for digital platforms based on market size and presence

Public-private partnerships for digital infrastructure development while maintaining public oversight

Multilateral regulatory frameworks that respect national sovereignty while enabling collective bargaining power

Frugal innovation approaches that solve local problems as entry points to broader digital participation

I think you are right, infinitely right, to go back to the history of Francophonie… four huge heads of state, Leopold Sedar Senghor, Habib Bourguiba, Amani Diori and Norodam Sianouk, imposed on France the idea that this French language does not belong to France, that it is something that we have in common. It is a common, in the sense that we are going to talk about a moment of digital common… And I often wondered what should be the main note of digital francophonie, and it might be to remember this story where we have protected, extended and brought to life a common.

Speaker

Henri Verdier

Reason

This comment is profoundly insightful because it reframes the entire discussion by connecting historical Francophonie principles to contemporary digital challenges. Verdier draws a powerful parallel between how French language was transformed from French property to a shared commons, and how digital infrastructure should remain a commons rather than be captured by monopolies.

Impact

This comment fundamentally shifted the discussion’s framework from technical issues to philosophical foundations. It provided a unifying conceptual lens that other speakers referenced throughout, establishing ‘commons’ as the central organizing principle for Francophone digital governance.

Africa has a double problem. First of all, our data is not enough exposed, and so we are not sure that the people who develop solutions with AI will find solutions for us. But secondly, if we manufacture the data and if we open them up, there is also a risk that we will be stolen and captured… we should design the African infrastructure for exposing African data… you can question these databases, but you can’t steal them.

Speaker

Henri Verdier (quoting Sam George, Ghana’s digital minister)

Reason

This captures the fundamental paradox facing developing nations in the AI era – the need to participate in data sharing for AI development while avoiding digital colonialism. It articulates a sophisticated understanding of how data exposure can be both empowering and exploitative.

Impact

This comment introduced nuanced thinking about data sovereignty that moved beyond simple ‘protect vs. share’ binaries. It sparked discussion about regional data infrastructure and influenced subsequent speakers to think more strategically about collective approaches to data governance.

Sometimes it’s us who pose problems in our Francophone space… I attend international conferences on digital sometimes. So, tell me Verdier, is the French minister in charge of digital always busy? He can come, he can attend these conferences where big decisions are made. For example, on the digital pact, they are always absent… We can’t go and steal data from GAFT, Google and others without solid consultation.

Speaker

Boukar Michel

Reason

This is a remarkably candid critique that challenges the Francophone community’s own commitment to digital governance. The Minister’s direct questioning of French participation and his blunt assessment of internal coordination failures demonstrates authentic leadership and self-reflection.

Impact

This comment created a moment of uncomfortable truth-telling that elevated the discussion’s honesty level. It shifted focus from external challenges to internal accountability, prompting more realistic assessments of what collective action actually requires.

Discoverability… refers to the availability of our content in their online presence, but above all, to the ability to be recommended this content, especially when we did not know its existence beforehand… discoverability is an eminently political issue, a cultural policy issue.

Speaker

Destiny Tchehouali

Reason

This comment introduces a sophisticated concept that goes beyond simple content creation to the politics of algorithmic recommendation. It reveals how cultural diversity is threatened not just by lack of content, but by the invisible mechanisms that determine what content gets seen.

Impact

This introduced a new analytical framework that helped other participants understand how cultural dominance operates through recommendation algorithms. It connected technical infrastructure questions to cultural policy in ways that influenced subsequent discussions about platform regulation.

Africa has data, but we have a serious problem. It is the low rate of digitization of this data. State data, public data, cultural data. Africa has a lot of data and is facing a serious problem of digitization… we are invaded by anglophone data.

Speaker

Emmanuel Empeta

Reason

This comment reframes the ‘data deficit’ narrative by distinguishing between data existence and digital accessibility. It challenges assumptions about African data poverty while highlighting the structural barriers to digital participation.

Impact

This intervention corrected a fundamental misunderstanding in the discussion and redirected attention from data creation to digitization infrastructure. It influenced the final recommendations toward supporting digitization rather than just data collection.

Overall assessment

These key comments transformed what could have been a technical discussion about digital infrastructure into a sophisticated analysis of power, sovereignty, and collective action. Verdier’s ‘commons’ framework provided philosophical grounding, while Minister Michel’s candid self-criticism introduced necessary realism about Francophone coordination challenges. Tchehouali’s ‘discoverability’ concept and Empeta’s digitization distinction added analytical precision that elevated the discussion’s sophistication. Together, these interventions created a conversation that moved fluidly between historical context, contemporary challenges, and future possibilities, ultimately producing a more nuanced understanding of how cultural communities can maintain agency in an increasingly centralized digital landscape.

How can francophone countries create shared optical fiber infrastructure at regional level?

Speaker

IGF Central Africa representative

Explanation

This addresses the infrastructure deficit problem that has existed for decades in francophone countries and could promote connectivity as outlined in the digital pact

How can francophone countries establish regional data centers or shared data centers?

Speaker

IGF Central Africa representative

Explanation

This is essential for francophone countries to master AI technology and address the battle for data governance

How can the OIF expand the D2Click program to reach more francophone countries like Chad that are not currently included?

Speaker

Boukar Michel

Explanation

The minister specifically mentioned Chad needs this program for training young French-speakers in digital content creation

What are the specific criteria needed to determine what constitutes diversified French-speaking content across different francophone languages?

Speaker

Destiny Tchehouali

Explanation

This is crucial for establishing rules and measures to ensure platforms promote francophone content diversity

What proportion of national content should governments require platforms to promote when offering distribution services on francophone territories?

Speaker

Destiny Tchehouali

Explanation

This relates to discoverability and ensuring francophone content gets adequate visibility on digital platforms

How can African infrastructure be designed for exposing African data while preventing capture and privatization?

Speaker

Henri Verdier

Explanation

This addresses the double problem of data exposure for AI development while maintaining sovereignty over African data

How can francophone countries develop adequate regulation for new technologies like AI and blockchain?

Speaker

IGF Central Africa representative

Explanation

New forms of regulation are needed for digital technologies, and francophone countries need to learn from practical cases and success stories

How can local languages (over 1000-2000 languages in francophone space) be utilized through AI as tools for development?

Speaker

IGF Central Africa representative

Explanation

This addresses inclusion and the potential for AI to support local content development and job creation

How can francophone countries promote research and development to create their own AI tools?

Speaker

IGF Central Africa representative

Explanation

This is identified as the missing piece for francophone Africa to develop indigenous AI capabilities

Why are books often translated from French into English, and how can this system be better framed?

Speaker

Nicole Baibé-Kennedy

Explanation

This relates to cultural preservation and the dominance of English in digital content translation

How can francophone countries leverage their country code domain extensions for digital development and data control?

Speaker

Sébastien Bachelet

Explanation

Country domain extensions are identified as a treasure that could help develop digital uses and maintain data control

How can francophone countries improve digitization of existing data (state, public, cultural data)?

Speaker

Emmanuel Empeta

Explanation

Africa has data but faces serious problems with low digitization rates, and this needs francophone support

How can historical data and archives housed in France be recovered and brought back to African francophone countries?

Speaker

IGF Central Africa representative

Explanation

Some countries have lost data through wars, and historical archives stored in France need to be repatriated for digitization efforts

Summary

This discussion focused on multi-stakeholder cooperation in digital governance during an era of increased protectionism, examining challenges to the current Internet governance model and opportunities presented by the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) Plus 20 review process. The panel, moderated by Cheryl Miller from the U.S. Council for International Business, included representatives from ICANN, government agencies, Internet Society, Global Network Initiative, and Meta Platforms.

Participants identified several key trends undermining multi-stakeholder digital governance, including rising geopolitical tensions, erosion of trust between nations, and regulatory approaches that prioritize national sovereignty over global Internet interoperability. Anne-Marie Ingtof-Milgar from Denmark highlighted the fundamental uncertainty created by shifting geopolitical orders, while Tatjana Trupina from Internet Society emphasized the tension between sovereign borders and the globally connected Internet. The panelists noted that well-intentioned regulations addressing legitimate concerns about online harms often create unintended consequences for Internet fragmentation when implemented without proper technical consultation.

The discussion revealed significant concerns about the WSIS Plus 20 review process, particularly regarding an elements paper that appeared to retreat from previously agreed-upon language supporting multi-stakeholder governance. Veni Markovski from ICANN warned that the current draft lacks support for the technical community and multi-stakeholder model that has guided Internet governance for two decades. Several speakers advocated for making the Internet Governance Forum permanent rather than continuing to renew its mandate every few years, citing its proven success and growing participation from diverse countries.

The panel emphasized the importance of leveraging existing frameworks rather than creating duplicative processes, suggesting that the Global Digital Compact’s implementation should be integrated into the WSIS framework. They called for transparent, inclusive negotiations and meaningful stakeholder participation in upcoming discussions, stressing that multi-stakeholder cooperation remains essential for maintaining an open, interoperable Internet while addressing legitimate security and sovereignty concerns.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Regulatory and Political Trends Undermining Multi-stakeholder Governance**: Panelists discussed how increasing protectionism, geopolitical tensions, data localization requirements, and fragmented national regulations are threatening the global, interoperable internet and undermining collaborative digital governance approaches.

– **WSIS Plus 20 Review and Global Digital Compact Integration**: Extensive discussion on how to leverage the World Summit on the Information Society’s 20-year review process and the Global Digital Compact to reinforce multi-stakeholder principles, avoid duplication of processes, and ensure meaningful stakeholder participation in UN negotiations.

– **Making the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) Permanent**: Strong advocacy from multiple panelists for transitioning the IGF from its current renewable mandate structure to permanent status, given its 20-year track record of success and growing participation from diverse countries including China and Russia.

– **Balancing Digital Sovereignty with Global Connectivity**: Discussion of the tension between legitimate national concerns (security, citizen protection, autonomy) and maintaining an open, globally connected internet, emphasizing the need for proportionate regulatory responses that don’t fragment the internet.

– **Power Asymmetries and Market Concentration**: An audience member raised concerns about inequality in the digital ecosystem, including the concentration of power among major tech companies and the weaponization of digital infrastructure, prompting discussion about antitrust, platform accountability, and supporting innovation diversity.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to examine multi-stakeholder cooperation in digital governance during an era of increased protectionism, develop strategies for advancing the multi-stakeholder model through upcoming WSIS Plus 20 negotiations, and strengthen collaboration between different stakeholder groups (academia, governments, industry, civil society, and technical community).

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a professional, collaborative tone throughout, with participants demonstrating deep expertise and genuine concern for preserving multi-stakeholder governance principles. While acknowledging significant challenges from geopolitical tensions and regulatory fragmentation, the tone remained cautiously optimistic about finding solutions through inclusive processes. The panelists showed mutual respect and built upon each other’s points constructively, even when discussing complex political realities that threaten their shared vision of open internet governance.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Cheryl Miller** – Vice President for Digital Policy at the U.S. Council for International Business (USCIB); Session moderator; Member of the multi-stakeholder advisory group (MAG)

– **Veni Markovski** – Vice President for Government and Intergovernmental Organization Engagement at ICANN and interim head of that department; Based in New York, covers UN agencies, UN, ITU and others

– **Jorge Cancio** – Swiss government representative; Member of the multi-stakeholder advisory group (MAG)

– **Tatjana Trupina** – Senior Advisor on Institutional Relations at Internet Society

– **Jason Pielemeier** – Leader of the Global Network Initiative, a multi-stakeholder organization working on free expression and privacy in the tech sector

– **Anne Marie Ingtof Milgar** – Danish Tech Ambassador

– **Flavia Alves** – Director of International Organizations for Meta Platforms

– **Milton Mueller** – Internet Governance Project at Georgia Tech

– **Audience** – Juan Ortiz, PhD candidate at USC

**Additional speakers:**

– **Juan Ortiz** – PhD candidate at USC (identified as separate from generic “Audience” category)

# Multi-stakeholder Cooperation in Digital Governance: Navigating Protectionism and Geopolitical Uncertainty

## Executive Summary

This interactive discussion examined the challenges facing multi-stakeholder digital governance amid increasing protectionism and geopolitical tensions. Moderated by Cheryl Miller from the U.S. Council for International Business, the panel brought together representatives from ICANN, government agencies, Internet Society, Global Network Initiative, and Meta Platforms to address how collaborative governance models can adapt to current pressures.

The conversation revealed fundamental tensions between the borderless nature of the Internet and territorial sovereignty of nation-states. Participants identified trends undermining traditional multi-stakeholder approaches, including regulatory fragmentation and data localisation requirements, while highlighting opportunities through the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) Plus 20 review process to reinforce collaborative governance principles and make the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) permanent.

## Current Challenges to Multi-stakeholder Digital Governance

### Geopolitical Shifts and Erosion of Trust

Anne-Marie Ingtof-Milgar, Denmark’s Tech Ambassador, provided a sobering assessment: “the fact that we’re trying to think about multi-stakeholder cooperation in a time that is a shifting geopolitical order, the last three decades of an international rule-based order are right now at a conjunction where I’m not sure what the answer is going to be a few years down the line.” This uncertainty stems from intensified strategic and economic competition globally.

The erosion of trust between nations has made cooperation increasingly difficult, with governments becoming more protective of their digital sovereignty while recognising their dependence on global connectivity.

### Regulatory Fragmentation and Technical Consultation Gaps

Veni Markovski from ICANN highlighted that governments sometimes regulate without consulting technical experts, leading to potential Internet fragmentation. He shared a specific example: “In Bulgaria in 1999, they wanted to license ISPs, and it took a Supreme Court case to resolve this issue.”

Tatjana Trupina from Internet Society articulated the core challenge: “There is a tension, especially in the current geopolitical climate, between sovereign states and their borders, and them trying to navigate this climate. And tension between states and sovereign borders and the open, interoperable, and globally connected Internet.”

Jason Pielemeier from the Global Network Initiative noted that while some regulatory efforts show promise, imprecise regulatory responses to Internet harms often create cross-border impacts that fragment the global Internet ecosystem.

### Data Localisation and Digital Protectionism

Flavia Alves from Meta Platforms identified data localisation and digital protectionism as significant drivers of censorship and Internet fragmentation. She mentioned specific infrastructure challenges, noting Meta’s investment in projects like “Project W submarine cable” to improve connectivity.

Milton Mueller from Georgia Tech’s Internet Governance Project reframed these issues, pointing out that “the protectionism and fundamentally the fragmentation and the sovereignty concerns you’re talking about are fundamentally about digital free trade.” This highlighted that many digital governance challenges are actually trade disputes requiring engagement beyond traditional Internet governance forums.

## The WSIS Plus 20 Opportunity

### Current State and Integration Challenges

The WSIS Plus 20 review process emerged as a central focus. Veni Markovski warned that current drafts lack adequate support for the technical community and multi-stakeholder model. However, speakers saw opportunities to incorporate positive language from the Global Digital Compact (GDC).

Jorge Cancio, representing Switzerland and serving on the multi-stakeholder advisory group, called for “a joint implementation roadmap integrating GDC into WSIS framework” to avoid duplications. He mentioned that Switzerland has circulated a non-paper on this topic and invited participants to approach them for discussions.

Jason Pielemeier emphasised that the GDC was “facilitated and negotiated really in New York” and stressed that WSIS should incorporate GDC objectives while maintaining its multi-stakeholder foundation.

### Ensuring Meaningful Participation

Tatjana Trupina stressed that “multi-stakeholder approach must be at the core with transparency and inclusion, not just lip service,” emphasising that “it is important for stakeholders to see how their input is actually taken into account.”

Jorge Cancio raised questions about the structure of participation, particularly regarding the informal multi-stakeholder sounding board, asking whether it would “act as a spokesperson of the global community or just be an elite group.”

## Making the Internet Governance Forum Permanent

### Strong Consensus for Permanence

There was remarkable agreement on making the IGF permanent after twenty years of temporary mandates. Anne-Marie Ingtof-Milgar argued that “IGF should be institutionalised as what works, rather than creating more global conversation processes.”

Flavia Alves noted that “IGF should be made permanent given its 20-year success and growing participation from previously sceptical countries,” specifically mentioning that China and Russia now host IGF events, demonstrating growing acceptance of the forum.

When Cheryl Miller asked “Does that mean that it’s permanent already? Do we just make that push for it?” the consensus was clear that formal permanence still requires action.

Jorge Cancio supported permanence with practical considerations, advocating for stable mixed funding and using the IGF as a vehicle for WSIS and GDC implementation.

## Addressing Digital Inequality and Market Concentration

### Challenging Questions from the Audience

Juan Ortiz, a PhD candidate at USC, raised critical questions about power distribution, noting “massive inequality exists in Internet value distribution, with few companies dominating traffic and wealth creation.” He provided specific examples, mentioning how “Google, YouTube traffic” dominates and how “ICC emails being cut by Microsoft” demonstrates platform power.

Ortiz challenged the panel: “how are we going to remain together if being together implies weaponisation, implies inequality, implies lack of distribution of value?”

### Varied Responses to Structural Challenges

Anne-Marie Ingtof-Milgar pointed to European legislation and platform accountability measures as necessary tools. Jorge Cancio referenced multi-stakeholder guidelines as potential solutions, while acknowledging that “power asymmetries must be addressed through evolved multi-stakeholder approaches.”

Flavia Alves acknowledged industry responsibility through connectivity investments and supporting small businesses on platforms, but the responses highlighted ongoing tensions between different approaches to addressing inequality.

## Connectivity and the Digital Divide

### Persistent Challenges

Despite twenty years since original WSIS commitments, Tatjana Trupina highlighted that “original WSIS connectivity goals remain unmet with one-third of the world still unconnected, requiring strengthened implementation.”

Anne-Marie Ingtof-Milgar, noting she had recently returned from maternity leave, emphasised the need to “focus on delivering actual outcomes rather than just negotiating text, especially for countries still joining the digital revolution.”

Flavia Alves suggested that connectivity and bridging the digital divide could be areas where stakeholders find common ground for cooperation.

## Trade Dimensions and Institutional Gaps

Milton Mueller’s intervention fundamentally reframed the discussion by identifying digital governance challenges as trade-related. He questioned whether multi-stakeholder models could be applied to World Trade Organisation negotiations, highlighting a significant gap in current approaches.

This observation revealed that while multi-stakeholder models have succeeded in technical coordination and policy dialogue, they haven’t been applied to trade negotiations where many digital governance decisions are ultimately made.

## Key Areas of Agreement and Next Steps

### Procedural Consensus

The discussion revealed strong consensus on several procedural issues:

– Making the IGF permanent with stable funding

– Ensuring transparent, inclusive, and meaningful multi-stakeholder participation

– Integrating WSIS Plus 20 and GDC implementation without duplication

– Consulting technical experts in regulatory processes to avoid Internet fragmentation

### Implementation Focus

Speakers agreed on prioritising implementation over endless negotiation. As Anne-Marie noted, there’s a need to focus on “what works” rather than creating new conversation processes.

The panel emphasised leveraging existing frameworks like the IGF and national/regional Internet governance initiatives rather than building parallel structures.

## Conclusion

The discussion demonstrated both the continued relevance and evolving challenges of multi-stakeholder digital governance. While geopolitical tensions and economic pressures create new obstacles, there remains strong support for collaborative approaches among diverse stakeholders.

The WSIS Plus 20 process represents a critical opportunity to reinforce multi-stakeholder principles while adapting to new realities. The strong consensus on making the IGF permanent provides a concrete, achievable objective that could demonstrate the continued value of collaborative governance.

However, deeper challenges around digital inequality, market concentration, and the tension between sovereignty and global connectivity require ongoing attention. As the interactive nature of this session demonstrated, meaningful multi-stakeholder cooperation depends on genuine dialogue that addresses difficult questions rather than avoiding them.

The path forward requires both defending existing achievements in Internet governance and innovating new approaches that can address legitimate concerns while maintaining the open, interoperable Internet that has driven global connectivity and economic development.

Cheryl Miller: Hi everyone. Hi everyone. Okay, sorry. This is my first time wearing earphones with a microphone, so apologies. I want to thank you all for coming here today. This session is multi-stakeholder cooperation in an era of increased protectionism. We have a panel full of experts and I’m really excited to dive right in and hear from them. I really would like this to be an interactive session and I really want to encourage you all to get up to the microphone and ask questions so there won’t be any long speeches or anything like that here. What we’re hoping to achieve in this session is a shared understanding in advancing the multi-stakeholder model to Internet governance and more broadly digital governance. Also hopefully discussions around a tentative roadmap for community engagement for the WSIS Plus 20 negotiations and strengthen collaboration between academia, governments, industry, civil society and the technical community. My name is Cheryl Miller and I’m the Vice President for Digital Policy at the U.S. Council for International Business, USCIB. For those of you who are not familiar with USCIB, we are a business association that promotes the voice of business in the multilateral process. We have special standing with ECOSOC and we engage across many different international organizations whether it is the Internet Governance Forum, APEC, the IGF, WSIS Plus 20, et cetera. What I’d like to do now is I’d like to allow the panelists to each introduce themselves and then we’ll dive into some questions to get the conversation started. Thank you so much. And if we start with you, Veni, that would be great.

Veni Markovski: My name is Veni Markovski. I’m Vice President for Government and Intergovernmental Organization Engagement at ICANN and interim head of that department. Based in New York, I cover a lot of the UN agencies, UN, ITU and others.

Jorge Cancio: Hello. Hello, everyone. I’m Jorge Cancio, Swiss government.

Tatjana Trupina: Hello everybody. My name is Tatjana Trupina and I’m a Senior Advisor on Institutional Relations at Internet Society.

Jason Pielemeier: Hi. I’m Jason Pilemar. I lead something called the Global Network Initiative, which is a multi-stakeholder organization working on free expression and privacy in the tech sector.

Anne Marie Ingtof Milgar: Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Anne-Marie Ingtof-Milgar and I’m the Danish Tech Ambassador.

Flavia Alves: Hi everyone. My name is Claudia Alves, Director of International Organizations for Meta Platforms.

Cheryl Miller: Thank you. So I think for the benefit of some of the newcomers in the room, I’ll just say a couple of words just with respect to the history of WSIS and IGF. So the World Summit on the Information Society is coming up for its 20-year review. And through this process, you know, it really laid out and established the multi-stakeholder model that we have today and it helped to create the Internet Governance Forum. It helped to create the Committee on Science and Technology for Development, CSTD. For those of you who are new, you may be hearing all these acronyms and I know it can be overwhelming. So we’re going to do our best to spell out those acronyms as we go along. But the first question that I’d like to ask our panel, what regulatory or political trends are undermining multi-stakeholder digital governance today and how are they affecting global cooperation? Who would like to jump in first? Veni?

Veni Markovski: I mean, thanks for volunteering me. I wasn’t going to. It’s like law school, Socratic method. Yeah, I was hiding here but you saw me nevertheless. I don’t know that we can talk about the regular. I mean, ICANN has a legislative regulatory tracking which we do at every ICANN meeting and for those of you who are not familiar, ICANN is the Internet Corporation for Signed Names and Numbers. We coordinate the domain name system, the IP addresses, protocol parameters on the Internet. And we have three times a year we have public meetings and they’re all accessible. You know, there is a recording from every session and you guys can go and take a look at it including on our leg tracking. I would say that sometimes governments take decisions to regulate or to govern one or another aspect of the Internet without thinking of the consequences that this might lead to. And sometimes this might lead to fragmentation at the technical level. So earlier today, Mona Gaballa, our president and CEO, spoke at the opening of the IGF and he mentioned that we’re talking about coordination, not centralization of the functions that we do and the way it makes the Internet work. So I think it’s important to actually understand that it’s better to talk to the technical experts before drafting or passing any legislation because once it’s passed, it usually takes a lot of time to fix it. I can give examples from my own Bulgaria where in 1999 the government introduced licensing for the Internet service providers and it took a whole case at the Supreme Court to get rid of it. So again, the urge here is to make sure that they use a multi-stakeholder model of somehow or consultations when they’re discussing issues. And again, ICANN is limited to talk about the technical aspects of the functioning of the Internet. So we’re looking always at is the DNS working around the globe, are the IP addresses working as the protocol parameters, and as long as they’re working, you know, whatever else is being governed and is being regulated on top of that, that’s up to every country to decide because they have legal jurisdiction in their borders. Thank you.

Cheryl Miller: Thank you. Did I see someone else? Come on in.

Anne Marie Ingtof Milgar: The question on what are the political trends affecting global cooperation, I find myself every morning waking up and feel, you know, a sense of uncertainty, insecurity, discombobulated. We got to be very honest that the fact that we’re trying to think about multi-stakeholder cooperation in a time that is a shifting geopolitical order, the last three decades of an international rule-based order are right now at a conjunction where I’m not sure what the answer is going to be a few years down the line. There’s an uncertainty. There’s an intensified strategic and economic competition globally, and we do not know the outcome of that. And it is impacting the multi-stakeholder and the multilateral processes as we speak. There’s an increase in conflicts around us, unfortunately, and we see that on the rise. All of this leads to an erosion of trust. The definition of trusted partners, I think, and I can speak for my own country on this, is changing. And so the combined sort of uncertainty, competition, uncomfortable truth that we do not know the future we’re going into is making cooperation incredibly hard. And what I hope for me, IGF, this year will be a sense of what can we meaningfully do to continue and drive some of this forward? What does meaningful, inclusive, effective multi-stakeholder governance look like in a world that is so fundamentally different than it was last year when we met at IGF?

Cheryl Miller: Thank you. And I would agree with that. I sit on the multi-stakeholder advisory group, which is the MAG, and so we’ve been having a lot of conversations around this as well, and conversations around the value of the IGF and how we can support it and support the multi-stakeholder model throughout. Tatiana, did you want to add?

Tatjana Trupina: Yes, thank you. And maybe I will go back a bit from the geopolitical tensions to what Venya was talking about, and start from this perspective. There is a tension, especially in the current geopolitical climate, between sovereign states and their borders, and them trying to navigate this climate. And tension between states and sovereign borders and the open, interoperable, and globally connected Internet. And when Venya was talking about regulation, especially regulation on the top of this network, we can recognize the states do have very valid concerns, for example, about security, safety of their citizens, online harms, crime, as well about their autonomy. Their ability to represent their citizens, their ability to protect their citizens. But again, as Venya said, the way states address these concerns, or maybe regional organizations are trying to address these concerns collectively, could harm the global interoperability and connectivity, perhaps sometimes even inadvertently, as unintended consequence. And in this way, what I see is a trend that is hampering the market. Interoperability and connectivity is the focus on national and regional sovereign policies, regulations, and it’s not only about affecting the Internet, it also affects the global cooperation because when you are focusing on your territory, you’re losing this global picture. This tension cannot be resolved just by saying, okay, let’s ditch the multi-stakeholder process, let’s go to more national, intergovernmental, multilateral regulatory processes. So, we must work together in this multi-stakeholder fashion to address these threats and to address the trends globally. And while we are addressing those concerns globally, the valid concerns, the legitimate concerns, we have to preserve the global connectivity and interoperability. So, we can have safety, we can save security, and at the same time, we can have open and globally connected Internet. Thank you.

Cheryl Miller: Thank you. And Jason, I know GNI has been doing a lot of work around this. What are your thoughts?

Jason Pielemeier: Yeah, thanks. So, really building on what everyone else has said already, and just maybe to pull out a few regulatory trends. I think the concerns, the legitimate concerns, as Tatiana was articulating, for addressing harms on the Internet, I think are well understood. And there’s a recognition that sovereign states will, in certain circumstances, need to take steps to address those harms. A challenge is that where states try to address those harms in imprecise or disproportionate ways, they end up not only creating impacts within their own jurisdiction for their own citizens, but they create impacts across the Internet because of its interoperable, interconnected nature. So, you know, examples like network blocking or even network shutdowns, you know, attempts to take censorship deeper and deeper into the technology stack are sort of examples of that trend. On the other hand, there are more appropriate, more proportionate efforts that have been, that are being developed. The Digital Services Act in the EU, the Online Safety Act in the UK. These are not perfect, but they do at least attempt to address the content layer of the Internet in a way that recognizes that not every platform has the same business model, not every platform has the same risk profile, the same user base. And so they center on risk management frameworks that allow for a degree of flexibility. And those approaches, I think, have more promise and do less damage to sort of the fundamental layers of the Internet architecture. But they too are now being politicized, right? And we’re seeing an attempt to brand, you know, common sense, good faith efforts to regulate as censorship themselves. And it’s not to say that there aren’t concerns about how these laws could be misused. And unfortunately, we have seen high level political figures in Europe, you know, articulate a desire to use regulation in ways that we would consider inconsistent with the regulatory frameworks themselves. But by and large, these are good faith efforts to try and address legitimate concerns. And the fact that they’re becoming politicized and getting caught up in these broader geopolitical headwinds is of real concern. Because if these efforts can’t succeed, then I’m afraid we will see the more far-reaching, the more disproportionate efforts prevail. And that will do more damage to the interoperable global Internet.

Cheryl Miller: And this makes the business environment particularly very, very difficult. Flavia, from Meta’s perspective, how is this having an impact?

Flavia Alves: Yes, I think some of my colleagues made this comment here. And I think the most impact for us is the impact of calls for data localization, digital protectionism in general that can result in censorship. But having to reform or reduce or just respond to requests for reduction and removal of content on our platform in a speed process that can actually result in censorship, that is something that is actually impacting the global network in a way that isn’t resulted in Internet fragmentation, obviously. And so getting back to the point, I think every other colleague here made a comment on how it is important to take into account these digital sovereignty asks and see how it impacts on Internet fragmentation. But how can we go back to the WSIS principles and bring back the importance of mood stakeholder participation in these conversations? The WSIS had provided us a platform to discuss these issues, and I think we should take the opportunity that we have now to readdress how to connect on these matters with the stakeholders on the ground. Technical community has an important factor in expertise to talk on those issues, just like business that can say what is commercial or what is actually doable for us to respond and how should we be protecting an open, interoperable and free Internet.

Cheryl Miller: Thank you. And Jorge, did you have thoughts?

Jorge Cancio: Yeah. Maybe too many to put them in 90 seconds or in two minutes. I think we are living in a time of contradictions, which is paradoxical in many ways. So we had some years ago this report from the high-level panel on digital cooperation, which was called Cooperation in an Age of Digital Interdependence. And at the same time, we have the mounting geopolitical tensions, the different interests, and of course, much more political attention to what formally 20 years ago was a much more technical subject. And you see that at all levels and it doesn’t make our life easier. But I wouldn’t see linear evolution or just a linear path of development. There are many contradictions. It depends on the level where you are talking about. It depends on the subject you are talking about. It depends on what the national stakeholders or the national government is doing about it. So just to mention some examples, of course, we have, for instance, the more technical management of the internet. And here we talk about ICANN, for instance, and I have here VENI to my right. And what we see is much more attention from governments to things like DNS abuse, to the malicious use of some of the elements of the DNS where ICANN has a role. And at the same time, we see the ICANN model that takes some time to get people together and to agree. And maybe not all incentives are always set right to deliver because political attention means that also the political people who are responsible are accountable, are really made responsible if there are no results. So that’s also something the community, the technical community or the people, the community that is participating in ICANN has to take into account as a legitimate concern. So it’s not just a top-down decision of government officials who have no clue about the issue. It’s really about things that affect the people. And I think I’m optimistic on the possibility of these multi-stakeholder organizations and communities to deliver. Then you have other, for instance, AI, which is the topic of attention in many places during this forum. And you could say, okay, has there been a move for top-down regulation of AI? Now there are many contradictions. There are different positions all across the globe at the national level. But for instance, the first international, let’s say, binding legal document on AI, which was developed by the Council of Europe, was very much based on a multi-stakeholder process. So we see how there are contradictions where in some places you can push the multi-stakeholder approach. In other places, you have a pushback. So it depends very much. It depends also on us. And I think that brings us also to the next. We have seen what happens when you have a weak process, when you have a process where multistakeholder is just a lip service, is something that is not really felt and we have an opportunity to learn from that and to improve things based on that learning and to make the multistakeholder approach in the WSIS Plus 20 review much more powerful.

Cheryl Miller: Thank you. I want to pause there. Is there anyone from the audience who would like to ask something or add something? Come on up to the microphone. Please tell us your name and where you work and all that good stuff.

Milton Mueller: Is this the mic? It’s very tall. Can you hear me? Yes. All right. My name is Milton Mueller. I’m at the Internet Governance Project at Georgia Tech. There’s kind of like a missing link or an elephant in the room that you’re not talking about. I think Mia raised it sort of by implication and I think Flavia raised it and it’s the issue of trade. So the protectionism and fundamentally the fragmentation and the sovereignty concerns you’re talking about are fundamentally about digital free trade. Like can you move data around borders? Can you offer services in different parts of the world or do you have to conform to completely different regulatory patterns? And you’re so focused on multistakeholder cooperation but the fact of the matter is that trade issues are negotiated by the WTO, which is a multilateral organization. Do you think it’s possible for the multistakeholder model, which is not really a model as we know, but do we think that civil society and others could participate in WTO negotiations? Could we infuse that process with multistakeholder participation the way we have, let’s say, in ICANN and the IGF? That’s my question.

Cheryl Miller: Thank you. That’s a great question, Milton. And thank you for helping to flesh out the conversation. Would anyone like to take a stab at an answer?

Veni Markovski: If nobody is willing, I can take it.

Anne Marie Ingtof Milgar: Go ahead. Mia, you go first. My name is Anne-Marie. Sorry. But I think it says Mia up there. Mia is my incredibly wonderful colleague. Okay. That’s what was confusing me. I actually had to turn around at one point because I was like I thought it was Anne-Marie. Mia is sitting right down here right now. She’s not, but she did before. You’re welcome to change your name at any point. Questions I do not answer, go to Mia afterwards. She’s the brain behind all of this. I just get to sit here. So on this question, I think technically yes. I think there’s a bigger question on sort of the geopolitical, how effective is the World Trade Organization tackling what we are seeing now as a huge transformation of global trade. I come from a small, open economy. We are very much free marketeers, but we’re also not naive in understanding where the world is headed. And I think in that sense, it is critical to not think of the IGF, multi-stakeholder Internet governance going on over here where we’re all about free, open Internet, which let’s be honest, that is not entirely how the world already looks today, right? That is a vision, and I think it’s a vision that we firmly stand by, and with the EU presidency that we’re going to be assuming in five days from now, 1st of July, that will be the same vision that we will be pursuing through visas and all of the other multilateral bodies. But we have to be very realistic that the world is heading in a different place, one of more protectionism, one where trade is no longer sort of a Kumbaya place for us, but one of a lot of tension, and how to maintain a free, open Internet, because that is a prerequisite for the resilience and the securities of our communities. We had a discussion about this earlier today. How do we take that into the domain of national common interest? By the way, this is Mia entering over there. Any questions? She can’t hear. Which is even better, right? So just to say… She can’t hear what we are talking about. I know, which makes it better. This is really a question of how do we maintain and preserve the model as much as we can in a radically different world, at least for the next couple of years. I don’t have the answer. I have a promise from the Danish government that we will try to do as much as we can on infusing the multi-stakeholder model that we think worked well, not only for Internet governance, but across the board. But it’s not an easy play.

Cheryl Miller: Vanny, I think you wanted…

Veni Markovski: I think this is way better than… Flavia? Very quickly, Vanny.

Flavia Alves: I think when it comes to the discussion around data-free flows of trust and data governance and the conversations we are in internationally now, I think definitely there are conversations on the bilateral level, there are conversations of the EU-US level, there are conversations at the WTO, there are conversations actually in other international multi-stakeholder forums, such as the OECD. And data flows is also not only an economic issue, but it’s also a privacy and security issue, that we need to be careful and balance how we do the safeguards on privacy at the same time on law enforcement and others. So I think there is an excellent work that has been done by the OECD called the Trusted Government Access to Data Flows, Trusted Government Access. And there was an input from not only private privacy agencies, but also law enforcement agencies. And the OECD got input from civil society as well as industry, and there was an agreement on how to approach data flows, to secure data flows, at least among those countries that are from OECD. This work continues at the OECD. But above all, what I believe, there is also a discussion at this, at the UN level in the WSOS process, which you believe should really be taken by other bodies. There are more experts on this, such as the OECD. At the WTO, I understand the conversation is very member state driven. Not even us as private sector, we participate there. So I think in my expertise in this field, I would encourage us to go back to the OECD Trusted Government Access, but then move away from only government’s discussion on this.

Cheryl Miller: Thank you. Are there any questions online? No? Okay. Any other questions in the room before we move forward? Okay. And picking up on that point on Trusted Government Access, we have the WSIS Plus 20 Review. We have the implementation of the Global Digital Compact, which came together last year, right? How can we leverage the WSIS Plus 20 Review and the GDC to reinforce trust? Is that possible? Can it reinforce inclusion? And can it reinforce global cooperation and digital governance?

Veni Markovski: I want to start first because, unfortunately, I have to leave for a bilateral, which starts in 10 minutes. But I think it’s very important to take the good things from the GDC, which is, in our case, from ICANN’s point of view, this is the text about internet governance, and use it in the WSIS Plus 20 Review. Because we’ve seen already with the elements paper that was published last Friday that that language is gone completely. Actually, the language that is there about internet governance goes back to, like, 2002, maybe, 2003. And then the other thing which we have to have as a lesson, and we already see that, actually, in the WSIS Plus 20 organization, the Secretariat is way better in managing the WSIS Plus 20. They have multi-stakeholder consultations. They’re taking notes. They’re webcasting some of the stuff, you know. So we are hopeful that the co-facilitators have taken notes and are going to use the WSIS Plus 20 to show how a multi-stakeholder process could be implemented to the limits, of course, of the UN General Assembly Rules of Procedure. Because we know from the WSIS Plus 10, 10 years ago, that there are certain requirements that the governments will never change for that particular process because they cannot be changed just for this process. They have to be changed for every other process. And so we are hoping that this is with regards to the processes and the way they work. Now, also, it’s important to see how the relations between the WSIS and the GDC will be formed, because even though, for example, there was an agreed language in the GDC about the importance of the IGF, later last year in the ICT resolution discussions on the General Assembly, this language was taken back to before it. So for those of you who are listening and who are in the room, please understand that the UN processes are very complex and sometimes very complicated. And even though we have the good desire to provide our factual information, how the Internet works, and what is good in the processes so far, it’s not necessarily that the governments will take this and will not decide to change it. So it’s a very complex process. The ICANN community… The broader internet community had a wake-up call with the Elements paper because they were expecting maybe some support of the multi-stakeholder model, some support for the technical community and that is not in the text. So there is a lot of areas that we would be able to contribute to try to persuade the governments to take the good language from the

Cheryl Miller: GDC. Thank you. Thank you. And Tatiana? Yes, thank you. Just zooming out a bit

Tatjana Trupina: and building upon what Veni said, rather than looking at the text and words and shaping, I would say that how the question is posed, right? Reinforcing trust, reinforcing cooperation. We cannot reinforce trust, we cannot reinforce cooperation if we don’t put multi-stakeholder approach in the core of these processes. Transparency and inclusion at the core. And Jorge, you said, you used the words lip service, right? So this inclusion should not be just talking for participation. I think it is important for stakeholders to see how their input is actually taken into account, for example, in the WSIS review process. And transparency is very much at the core of this as well. And here we can, for example, leverage the NetMundial plus 10 guidelines, which is a very good reference. And secondly, and I think that everybody is talking about this, right? Let’s not duplicate the processes. But I would add something to this. Not only not duplicate the process, let’s not create alternative vehicles or alternative process to what we already have. This would also allow us to avoid duplication as much as possible. Because very few stakeholders, if any, have resources to follow all these multiple complex processes. Venya was talking about complexity of the UN process. And not only to follow, but also resources to contribute to these multiple duplicative trucks. So in this regard, and I think I’ve heard some discussions already happening here, how the IGF and national and regional initiatives can be leveraged as a good vehicle for continuing the WSIS, for strengthening the WSIS implementation and the promise of the WSIS. But also being used as a vehicle for the GDC implementation within the WSIS process. Again, they’re very well positioned to address any issues within the GDC. And there are already existing channels. And any alternative process will significantly undermine this multi-stakeholder collaboration and participation. Also, with regard to IGF being such a vehicle, it should not become an avenue to sideline non-governmental stakeholders. When governments are discussing the GDC implementation or WSIS somewhere else, and other stakeholders are coming and discussing the IGF, no. They should be brought together. And in this regard, the IGF as an avenue should be strengthened as open, inclusive platform. At the same time, the WSIS and the GDC implementation should become more transparent, more open, and more inclusive. So this is a mutual process.

Cheryl Miller: Thank you. Thank you. And Jason, I know that the Global Network Initiative has been quite involved in the WSIS plus 20 discussions and the Global Digital Compact. What do you think?

Jason Pielemeier: Yeah, just to kind of synthesize a little bit maybe what Veni and Tatiana was just saying, I think there is good text in the GDC that it would be helpful to see reiterated and underscored in the WSIS. However, the WSIS process has been around for 20 years. It sets out a very broad and I think fairly politically sophisticated approach to global cooperation around the internet and internet governance. The GDC is very new. It’s a process driven by a relatively new office in New York and that was facilitated and negotiated really in New York, which within the UN system is a very different operating environment than Geneva and some of the other centers of conversation multilaterally. So there’s a real concern if the WSIS process essentially becomes transformed into GDC implementation rather than the WSIS being seen as a way to incorporate the objectives of the GDC into an existing process that is built with multi-stakeholder purchase and participation. So I hope that we can see those sort of textual references echoed into the WSIS but without fundamentally changing kind of the locus or the process that WSIS has embodied and hopefully will continue to carry forward.

Cheryl Miller: Thank you. Flavia, I know that Meta and many other businesses have been really involved in the WSIS since its inception as well as the Global Digital Compact. What do you think? Do you agree?

Flavia Alves: There are points obviously that I agree with Vinny and Jason. I think if I can step a bit with regard to the WSIS in general, I think it’s important for us to look at the process and the WSIS review right now. And so first we need to see and make sure this process is predictable, is transparent and is inclusive. So to the extent that there are consultations, that there are papers that we need to have enough time to be able to reiterate and connect between civil society and industry and others to submit comments and those comments should actually be taken into account. And I think that’s the process that we think should be established. We see a lot of good intention and it sounds that co-facilitators are trying as much and so we should continue to reinforce that. But then it comes with regard to the WSIS plus 20 resolution per se and I think there is a critical opportunity for us to again reinforce the stakeholder governance framework that we have seen for internet governance in general and we should take advantage of that again and do so. For instance, the definition of internet governance for some might be not an issue right now. We’ve just heard something about like maybe the G7 and G7 are not necessarily concerned with internet governance. They are more concerned with AI access and etc. But I really think that we do not need to lose this opportunity to again reinforce internet governance, to again reinforce the principle of a mood stakeholder approach to internet governance that we should be seeing on the definition that is right now in the elements paper. It’s not. When it comes then to internet governance too, obviously it’s very important to renew the IGF mandate and now I wonder is it important to renew or to make it permanent? Should we look into partnering with others and making it permanent? Are we, I mean as Cyril said, I was there at the WSIS resolutions discussions 10 years ago and we were discussing exactly the same. Obviously I’m getting old but it went too fast. 10 years is too much, too fast and we are here again. Should we make it permanent? It has been successful. We are having more and more participation from delegations such as China and Russia and others that before were not necessarily supposed or not approved or approval of the IGF process but now not only that but they also are hosting. I mean we all have an agreement here with countries that IGF it’s important. So I think we should take this opportunity to make it permanent and then obviously on the WSIS and the negotiation process, given the geopolitical process where we are, the UN negotiations now, issues such as human rights, AI, content information integrity, internet liability, copyrights and etc. are going to be taken, are going to be brought up and I think we should go back to what the resolution has been adopted before and go into those principles but also take into account what has been discussed at GDC and that’s how I go to Vinny’s point. I don’t think we should open again the discussion around AI. I don’t think we should open again the discussion of human rights. Human rights text at the GDC is actually, I mean Jason is much more of an expert but it’s actually something that we worked in and we support and so we want to see action on that. Does that make sense to open again with the same stakeholders the discussion about human rights and internet? So us adopting that text, it’s going to be interesting and then finally I think there are things that are good that everyone is working towards and we should continue but not forget it’s too very important connectivity. There was a huge focus on connectivity, spectrum access, you’re there as well, connectivity access and etc. It’s too important that we try to bridge the digital divide. It’s too important that we try to assure that connect communities have access to the latest technology and emerging technologies so that I must say for instance on artificial intelligence, open source artificial intelligence has been shown as a way of actually getting much more people using the tool than any other. So we would be supportive of something around that. I think the negotiation should start in topics that we actually agree on. So connectivity, access, education, research. Are we talking research? And of course, topics that we have issues that are hard to agree on, let’s leverage the GDC that has already been adopted. I know, long short, just to make sure that I do think both the WISAs and the GDC can actually be put together somehow as we lead to the December negotiations.

Cheryl Miller: Great points, thank you. And connectivity is so important, so thank you for raising that. With respect to making the IGF permanent, that is a topic that we’ve heard in a number of different meetings. It’s been here for 20 years and it has had some great results and some great success. Does that mean that it’s permanent already? Do we just make that push for it? It was one of the conversations that Flavia and I were just in recently. From a government perspective, Anne-Marie, what do you think?

Anne Marie Ingtof Milgar: I think many things. One is on this discussion between WISAs and GDC alignment and negotiating text and sort of the outcomes. I think we advocate for transparent, inclusive negotiations of the WISAs. We very much support permanently institutionalizing the IGF because more global conversations about process, I don’t think it’s going to lead to better outcomes. It’s also about institutionalizing what works. That goes to my second point on all of this. As we are negotiating and spending years, it feels like for years, since the first panel was set up in Geneva that led to the GDC, that led to the Office of the Tech Envoy. Now with WISAs, with NetMundial, going back to my initial conversations, that the geopolitical backdrop is completely changing. Erosion of trust, an altered global environment as we know it. If individual people, citizens are to trust these UN processes actually delivering open, free, secure, stable Internet and access for everyone to participate in the technological revolution, we need to focus on how to deliver that actually and not just negotiate text. This is not to diminish the incredible work that many of us spend so much of our time on, which is negotiating commas and sentences and words. But ultimately, if we do not want to lose so many countries who still have yet to fully participate in the digital revolution and harvest that for prosperity, for human rights, for security, for dignity, for opportunity for all, we need to be thinking a lot more about what can we do on actually implementing this. I was just on maternity leave, so I’ve been away for some months, and I come back and curious. Congratulations. Thank you so much. What have we done? And the thing is that this takes a long time. But if you look at the commitments in the GDC on delivering on the SDGs and leveraging digital, we have so much work ahead of us. And I say that as a government. We say this in a time when we know that civil society is losing funding. We know this is a time where a lot of funding also going to digital connectivity is gone, where platforms are stepping back a little bit on platform accountability. So I think that this IGF should be not just about the negotiated text and how we do processes in New York and Geneva, but much more on how do we deliver for those who are on the fence of whether to be with us or be against us on these negotiations so that they trust us and that they see that the multistakeholder model is delivering on the promises that we made.

Cheryl Miller: Thank you. And on your point on the dots and the commas and the hard work, Jorge, I know that you have been hard at work. You’re also on the multistakeholder advisory group with me, and you’ve put so much into the IGF and other things. What are your thoughts?

Jorge Cancio: Yeah. Thank you. So it’s difficult to sum up. Maybe some of you know that there’s been a non-paper being circulated by the Swiss, so by my government. And if you are interested and you don’t know it, please approach us because we are happy to share. And we’ve been building that over many conversations, not only in New York, in the Western countries or in the Global North, but with many partners from the Global South to really see how we can build a UN system on digital governance that delivers for all. And that means to really look into the what and the how and how we get there. And on the what, I agree very much that it will be very difficult to go beyond what we agreed last year in the Global Digital Compact. There’s a lot of substance there. Maybe if the process of WSIS plus 20 is stronger, more inclusive, maybe we can move the needle in one or two issues, but it will be a hard thing. But more important that what is on paper is how we put it to work. And there, especially thinking about this UN80, which is a budget cut process within the UN system, we cannot afford any baroque duplications and having parallel processes and some of them established ex-novo. We have to update and use the WSIS framework. And the WSIS framework is really the UN agencies putting the WSIS vision and the WSIS action lines into work together with stakeholders all over the world. And that’s what we have to update, putting the new agreements of the GDC into that work. That’s why we are advocating for a joint implementation roadmap of the GDC integrated into WSIS. And we are advocating also to update the existing WSIS architecture, which is different UN bodies and UN structures, to instill them with a multi-stakeholder approach to include stakeholder participation in the different steps of the work of the United Nations in this field. And of course, of improving and strengthening the IGF, making it permanent with a stable funding, a mixed funding, voluntary contributions, but also UN contributions. And that will be a hard fight, but we are not talking about tens of millions. We are talking about a couple of millions, so it’s doable. And we are also talking about other specific measures that we explain in our non-paper. So I think that, of course, the elements paper is lacking in many things. And as we have discussed here, it is also due to the fact that the co-facilitators decided to exclude everything that was minimally controversial. So it’s very important for all stakeholders, for all of you, for all of us to really participate in this consultation until the 15th of July. Put forward specific proposals, wording proposals, if possible, on how to improve things. We will, of course, do on the basis of our non-paper. And let’s use all channels of participation to the furthest extent possible. The co-facilitators are showing some willingness to go along the lines of the São Paulo multi-stakeholder guidelines. For instance, they have decided to establish this informal multi-stakeholder sounding board to help them in the negotiation process. And it’s important that this is not just an elite group formed by a couple of members of the IGF leadership panel and the IGF MAC. It’s important that those members are really connected to the rest of the global community and act as a spokesperson group of the multi-stakeholder community in order to be in the negotiation process. And of course, we as governments, we have different possibilities to include stakeholders like embedding them in our delegations. And we for sure are going to try to do that again as we’ve done in the past.

Cheryl Miller: Thank you so much. And we’re moving toward the end, but I want to check with our online participants. Is there anyone that wants to ask a question or make a comment? No? Anyone in the room that would like to comment on anything that’s been said? Come on up to the mic. If you can just let us know your name and who you’re with, that would be great. Thank you very much.

Audience: Juan Ortiz, PhD candidate at USC. I feel another elephant in the room is perhaps the inequality within the network currently that, you know, we have massive companies. If you put Google and YouTube together, they have the same amount of clicks as the next one. We have a massive inequality in the distribution of value of being together. The 10 richest people, I think 8 of them have made money off the internet, so we’re talking about connectivity, we want to connect everyone, but what are we connecting them to? We have very little technical distribution, the main companies keep their headquarters in the US, they don’t create jobs elsewhere, and we have the weaponization of these infrastructures so the ICC emails got cut by Microsoft, so how are we going to remain together if being together implies weaponization, implies inequality, implies lack of distribution of value, so I think one of the elephants in the room is what’s happening with antitrust, what’s happening with taxes, what’s happening with disarmament.

Cheryl Miller: Thank you for your comment, collaboration comes to mind when you mention that. Does anyone on the panel want to respond or make a comment?

Jorge Cancio: I wished I had the response to that, but I think it’s important if we are talking about multi-stakeholder approach and you look into the São Paulo multi-stakeholder guidelines which were adopted last year, the first guideline addresses that point, the point of asymmetries of power, asymmetries of influence, so it’s really a very tough question, but I think we can evolve also the multi-stakeholder approach to at least try to address some of those issues.

Cheryl Miller: Thank you, Annemarie?

Anne Marie Ingtof Milgar: It’s absolutely an elephant in the room. I think there are three main things that we’re doing from my own perspective. One is the DMA, so the European legislation on actually trying to make better market access for more players. Two, how do we support innovation, because right now I think the power grab and rightly so much of internet traffic is really within very, very few platforms, so how do we support an innovation for European companies, companies from all over the world that can deliver internet platforms to compete and allow for diversity, because with that also comes the diversity of what are we discussing online, how are we discussing online, how are we engaging online, what are we using and spending our time on digitally, and then I do think the third one, and that goes back to how we’re thinking about the multi-stakeholder cooperation, which is really also around platform accountability, because it’s going to be some time before that we’re going to see a fundamentally different picture of how it looks today, but I do think just as a hopeful comment, this is not the end of the digital revolution. Just because this is how it evolved for the past 10, 15 years, you have very few companies who have been incredibly successful to the point that we have very few others competing with them, why can’t we change that? I mean, the evolution, and I think especially the incredible innovators out there, the open source community, who I think sort of ebbs and flows over the past 30 years, but have gained an incredible traction again, the use of AI, not only from the existing live platforms, but very much in the hands of people around the world. Maria Ressa is here with Rappler, there’s so many new platforms that are starting to see the day of light, we have discussions on how are we meaningfully engaging online, and that also means diversifying the services that we’re using, so I do find there should be this, this is not the sort of the height of it, and from here on it’s just downwards, we’re really at an opportunity and an inflection point, I think, for a rethinking the internet we want, and how does it live up to the hopeful expectations back in 1992 of actually providing this wide array of opportunities, and emancipation for individuals and citizens in all sorts of acceptance form rather than where we are today.

Cheryl Miller: Thank you so much, and as we close out, maybe we can close out this way, I’d like to give everyone just really, really quickly, we’ll go down, what specific actions, we’ve had a lot of discussion about what we need to do, but what specific actions could we prioritize if we are to ensure meaningful, inclusive, and effective multi-stakeholder cooperation? Tatyana?

Tatjana Trupina: Yes, I can start, just to sum up basically what we discussed here, first of all we should continue demanding that the WSIS plus 20 review and GDC implementation process is transparent and inclusive, that stakeholders input is taken into account, and we should participate as Jorge said, and in terms of priorities, I have three, protect the global interoperability and connectivity, ensure that this is put at the core, secondly, strengthen the multi-stakeholder cooperation by reaffirming commitment to the multi-stakeholder model in the WSIS plus 20 and also by evolving the IGF and renewing its mandate, also making it permanent, and thirdly, and this goes to what was said about connectivity, the original WSIS goal was connectivity, we still have one third of the world not connected, the WSIS has to deliver, we have to strengthen its implementation to address the current and emerging digital divides.

Cheryl Miller: Thank you, and we’re running short on time, so I’m going to give Flavia the last word.

Flavia Alves: Sure, so I think one thing very quickly and following the question from the audience as well, it is important that on the multi-stakeholder to make sure it works, that every single stakeholder play their role, and so for instance when we say about making sure the internet is accessible, free and open for everyone, how do we do that as us, I speak for industry now, we invest in connectivity, we have just announced a super, a submarine cable that is one of the biggest that is called Project W, it’s going to go around to have users, to give users access to the latest technologies we have, but our users are also not necessarily receiving information, they are actually small business, selling, trading and creating in our platform, so that responds to the economic question, we are also helping increasing economic value in this country, but then when it comes to the use of platforms, it’s important for us to also invest on education and awareness, 10 years ago we were discussing the importance of helping education, including accessibility, awareness programs, to make sure folks are using the internet as they should, there are people that have access but may not know necessarily how to use the internet, but then when it comes to the WSIS, I have said my points before, making sure the process is right, making sure internet governance is included and multistakeholder process is defined there too.

Cheryl Miller: Thank you so much, and I want to say thank you so much to our audience, thank you for the questions, for our online audience as well, thank you so much for joining us, and for anyone who, raise your hand if you are an IGF newcomer, if this is your first IGF, that’s awesome, so I hope that we keep continuing to see you guys in these meetings, I hope that you get involved, and I hope to be sitting there and listening to you guys up here at one of your next panels, maybe at the next IGF, so thank you so much, and let’s give it up for our panel.

Agreement points

Need for transparent, inclusive, and meaningful multi-stakeholder participation in WSIS Plus 20 and digital governance processes

Speakers

– Veni Markovski
– Tatjana Trupina
– Jason Pielemeier
– Flavia Alves
– Jorge Cancio

Arguments

Good language from the GDC about Internet governance should be incorporated into WSIS Plus 20, as current elements paper lacks multi-stakeholder support

Multi-stakeholder approach must be at the core with transparency and inclusion, not just lip service

WSIS should incorporate GDC objectives without being transformed into GDC implementation, maintaining its 20-year multi-stakeholder foundation

The process must be predictable, transparent, and inclusive, with opportunity to reinforce Internet governance principles and make IGF permanent

A joint implementation roadmap integrating GDC into WSIS framework is needed, avoiding baroque duplications

Summary

All speakers agree that the WSIS Plus 20 review process must be genuinely transparent and inclusive, with meaningful stakeholder participation rather than token consultation. They emphasize the need to preserve and strengthen multi-stakeholder principles while integrating lessons from the Global Digital Compact.

Topics

Legal and regulatory

IGF should be made permanent given its 20-year track record of success

Speakers

– Anne Marie Ingtof Milgar
– Tatjana Trupina
– Flavia Alves
– Jorge Cancio

Arguments

IGF should be institutionalized as what works, rather than creating more global conversation processes

IGF and national/regional initiatives should be leveraged for continuing WSIS implementation without sidelining non-governmental stakeholders

The process must be predictable, transparent, and inclusive, with opportunity to reinforce Internet governance principles and make IGF permanent

IGF should be made permanent with stable mixed funding and serve as a vehicle for WSIS and GDC implementation

Summary

Multiple speakers strongly support making the IGF permanent, recognizing its proven effectiveness over 20 years and its potential role as a vehicle for implementing both WSIS and GDC objectives. They see permanence as institutionalizing what works rather than continuing endless process discussions.

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Regulatory approaches must consider technical implications and avoid Internet fragmentation

Speakers

– Veni Markovski
– Tatjana Trupina
– Jason Pielemeier
– Flavia Alves

Arguments

Governments sometimes regulate without consulting technical experts, leading to potential Internet fragmentation

Tension exists between sovereign state borders and the open, interoperable Internet, with focus on national policies potentially harming global connectivity

Imprecise regulatory responses to Internet harms create cross-border impacts, though some efforts like the Digital Services Act show more promise

Data localization and digital protectionism calls result in censorship and Internet fragmentation

Summary

Speakers agree that while governments have legitimate concerns about security and safety, regulatory approaches must consider technical implications and avoid fragmenting the global, interoperable Internet. They advocate for consulting technical experts and using more precise, proportionate regulatory frameworks.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Infrastructure

Connectivity and bridging the digital divide remain critical priorities

Speakers

– Tatjana Trupina
– Flavia Alves
– Anne Marie Ingtof Milgar

Arguments

Original WSIS connectivity goals remain unmet with one-third of the world still unconnected, requiring strengthened implementation

Connectivity and bridging the digital divide should be prioritized topics where stakeholders can find agreement

Focus should be on delivering actual outcomes rather than just negotiating text, especially for countries still joining the digital revolution

Summary

Speakers emphasize that the original WSIS goal of universal connectivity remains unfulfilled, with one-third of the world still unconnected. They agree this should be a priority area where stakeholders can find common ground and focus on actual implementation rather than just policy discussions.

Topics

Development | Digital access

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers, representing technical community perspectives, emphasize the need to salvage good language from the Global Digital Compact and integrate it into WSIS Plus 20, while avoiding duplication of processes. They share concern about the regression in the current elements paper.

Speakers

– Veni Markovski
– Jorge Cancio

Arguments

Good language from the GDC about Internet governance should be incorporated into WSIS Plus 20, as current elements paper lacks multi-stakeholder support

A joint implementation roadmap integrating GDC into WSIS framework is needed, avoiding baroque duplications

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Both speakers acknowledge the fundamental tension between national sovereignty concerns and maintaining global Internet connectivity, recognizing that current geopolitical shifts are making international cooperation more challenging.

Speakers

– Anne Marie Ingtof Milgar
– Tatjana Trupina

Arguments

Shifting geopolitical order and erosion of trust are making cooperation increasingly difficult

Tension exists between sovereign state borders and the open, interoperable Internet, with focus on national policies potentially harming global connectivity

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Both speakers, representing civil society and industry perspectives, share concerns about how regulatory responses to legitimate harms can create unintended consequences for Internet freedom and global connectivity, while acknowledging some regulatory efforts are more appropriate than others.

Speakers

– Jason Pielemeier
– Flavia Alves

Arguments

Imprecise regulatory responses to Internet harms create cross-border impacts, though some efforts like the Digital Services Act show more promise

Data localization and digital protectionism calls result in censorship and Internet fragmentation

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights

Unexpected consensus

Making IGF permanent after 20 years of temporary mandates

Speakers

– Anne Marie Ingtof Milgar
– Tatjana Trupina
– Flavia Alves
– Jorge Cancio

Arguments

IGF should be institutionalized as what works, rather than creating more global conversation processes

IGF and national/regional initiatives should be leveraged for continuing WSIS implementation without sidelining non-governmental stakeholders

The process must be predictable, transparent, and inclusive, with opportunity to reinforce Internet governance principles and make IGF permanent

IGF should be made permanent with stable mixed funding and serve as a vehicle for WSIS and GDC implementation

Explanation

The strong consensus across government, civil society, industry, and international organization representatives for making the IGF permanent is somewhat unexpected given the traditional reluctance of UN processes to create permanent institutions. The fact that even a government representative strongly advocates for this shows significant shift in thinking.

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Acknowledgment of digital inequality and market concentration as legitimate concerns requiring attention

Speakers

– Anne Marie Ingtof Milgar
– Jorge Cancio
– Flavia Alves

Arguments

European legislation like DMA, innovation support, and platform accountability are needed to address market concentration

Power asymmetries must be addressed through evolved multi-stakeholder approaches as outlined in São Paulo guidelines

Industry plays a role through connectivity investments, supporting small businesses on platforms, and education programs

Explanation

The consensus among government, civil society, and industry representatives that digital inequality and market concentration are real problems requiring attention is unexpected, as these stakeholders often have different perspectives on market regulation. Even the industry representative acknowledges the need for addressing these issues.

Topics

Economic | Legal and regulatory

Overall assessment

Summary

The speakers demonstrate strong consensus on procedural issues around multi-stakeholder governance, IGF permanence, the need for transparent and inclusive processes, and the importance of avoiding Internet fragmentation. They also agree on the continued importance of connectivity and bridging the digital divide.

Consensus level

High level of consensus on governance processes and institutional arrangements, with broad agreement on the need to preserve Internet openness while addressing legitimate regulatory concerns. This suggests potential for meaningful progress in WSIS Plus 20 negotiations if procedural agreements can be maintained and translated into substantive outcomes.

Different viewpoints

Approach to addressing digital inequality and market concentration

Speakers

– Anne Marie Ingtof Milgar
– Audience (Juan Ortiz)

Arguments

European legislation like DMA, innovation support, and platform accountability are needed to address market concentration

Massive inequality exists in Internet value distribution, with few companies dominating traffic and wealth creation

Summary

While both acknowledge the problem of digital inequality, Ingtof Milgar presents an optimistic view focusing on regulatory solutions like the DMA and supporting innovation, expressing hope that the digital revolution can be redirected. The audience member presents a more critical perspective, emphasizing the severity of current inequality and questioning whether connectivity efforts are meaningful given the concentration of power and weaponization of infrastructure.

Topics

Economic | Legal and regulatory

Unexpected differences

Optimism vs. pessimism about the future of digital governance

Speakers

– Anne Marie Ingtof Milgar
– Anne Marie Ingtof Milgar

Arguments

Shifting geopolitical order and erosion of trust are making cooperation increasingly difficult

European legislation like DMA, innovation support, and platform accountability are needed to address market concentration

Explanation

Unexpectedly, the same speaker (Ingtof Milgar) presents seemingly contradictory viewpoints – expressing deep concern about geopolitical uncertainty and erosion of trust making cooperation ‘incredibly hard,’ while simultaneously expressing optimism about the potential for change and innovation in the digital landscape. This internal contradiction reflects the complex and uncertain nature of current digital governance challenges.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Economic

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion revealed remarkably high consensus among speakers on fundamental principles and goals, with disagreements primarily focused on implementation approaches rather than core objectives. The main areas of disagreement centered on the extent of GDC-WSIS integration and approaches to addressing digital inequality.

Disagreement level

Low to moderate disagreement level. Most speakers shared common ground on supporting multi-stakeholder governance, making IGF permanent, ensuring transparency and inclusion, and addressing connectivity gaps. The disagreements were primarily tactical rather than strategic, focusing on ‘how’ rather than ‘what’ or ‘why.’ This suggests a mature policy community with shared values but different perspectives on implementation pathways. The implications are generally positive for advancing multi-stakeholder digital governance, as the consensus on principles provides a strong foundation for negotiating implementation details.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers, representing technical community perspectives, emphasize the need to salvage good language from the Global Digital Compact and integrate it into WSIS Plus 20, while avoiding duplication of processes. They share concern about the regression in the current elements paper.

Speakers

– Veni Markovski
– Jorge Cancio

Arguments

Good language from the GDC about Internet governance should be incorporated into WSIS Plus 20, as current elements paper lacks multi-stakeholder support

A joint implementation roadmap integrating GDC into WSIS framework is needed, avoiding baroque duplications

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Both speakers acknowledge the fundamental tension between national sovereignty concerns and maintaining global Internet connectivity, recognizing that current geopolitical shifts are making international cooperation more challenging.

Speakers

– Anne Marie Ingtof Milgar
– Tatjana Trupina

Arguments

Shifting geopolitical order and erosion of trust are making cooperation increasingly difficult

Tension exists between sovereign state borders and the open, interoperable Internet, with focus on national policies potentially harming global connectivity

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Both speakers, representing civil society and industry perspectives, share concerns about how regulatory responses to legitimate harms can create unintended consequences for Internet freedom and global connectivity, while acknowledging some regulatory efforts are more appropriate than others.

Speakers

– Jason Pielemeier
– Flavia Alves

Arguments

Imprecise regulatory responses to Internet harms create cross-border impacts, though some efforts like the Digital Services Act show more promise

Data localization and digital protectionism calls result in censorship and Internet fragmentation

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights

Key takeaways

Multi-stakeholder digital governance faces significant challenges from shifting geopolitical tensions, erosion of trust, and increasing protectionism that are making global cooperation more difficult

There is fundamental tension between sovereign state borders and the open, interoperable Internet, with national regulatory approaches potentially causing unintended fragmentation

The WSIS Plus 20 review process offers an opportunity to reinforce multi-stakeholder principles and Internet governance frameworks, but current elements paper lacks adequate multi-stakeholder language

The Global Digital Compact (GDC) contains good language on Internet governance that should be incorporated into WSIS Plus 20 without transforming WSIS into mere GDC implementation

The Internet Governance Forum (IGF) should be made permanent given its 20-year track record and growing participation, including from previously skeptical countries

Digital inequality and market concentration represent significant challenges, with few companies dominating Internet traffic and value creation

One-third of the world remains unconnected, indicating that original WSIS connectivity goals still require urgent attention and strengthened implementation

Meaningful multi-stakeholder cooperation requires transparency, inclusion, and stakeholder input being genuinely taken into account, not just lip service

Resolutions and action items

Participate in WSIS Plus 20 consultation process until July 15th deadline with specific wording proposals to improve the elements paper

Advocate for incorporating good Internet governance language from the GDC into the WSIS Plus 20 review

Push for making the IGF permanent with stable mixed funding (voluntary contributions plus UN contributions)

Establish a joint implementation roadmap integrating GDC into WSIS framework to avoid duplication

Ensure the informal multi-stakeholder sounding board acts as genuine spokesperson for the global community rather than just an elite group

Governments should embed stakeholders in their delegations during negotiations

Leverage IGF and national/regional initiatives as vehicles for WSIS and GDC implementation

Focus on delivering actual outcomes rather than just negotiating text, especially for countries still joining the digital revolution

Unresolved issues

How to effectively address power asymmetries and digital inequality within the multi-stakeholder model

Whether and how to incorporate multi-stakeholder participation into World Trade Organization negotiations on digital trade issues

How to balance legitimate government concerns about security and citizen protection with maintaining global Internet interoperability

The relationship and coordination between WSIS Plus 20 and GDC implementation processes remains unclear

How to ensure adequate funding for IGF if made permanent, particularly securing UN budget contributions

How to address market concentration and the dominance of few major Internet platforms

How to meaningfully connect one-third of the world that remains unconnected to the Internet

How to maintain multi-stakeholder cooperation effectiveness in an increasingly fragmented geopolitical environment

Suggested compromises

Use existing WSIS framework and update it rather than creating new parallel processes to avoid duplication and resource strain

Focus negotiations on topics where stakeholders can find agreement (connectivity, access, education, research) while leveraging already-agreed GDC text for contentious issues

Adopt risk management frameworks that allow flexibility for different platforms rather than one-size-fits-all regulation

Establish mixed funding model for IGF combining voluntary contributions with UN budget allocations

Create joint implementation roadmap that integrates GDC objectives into existing WSIS architecture rather than separate processes

Use São Paulo multi-stakeholder guidelines as reference for addressing power asymmetries while maintaining inclusive participation

Embed stakeholders in government delegations and use informal multi-stakeholder sounding boards to bridge governmental and non-governmental participation

We got to be very honest that the fact that we’re trying to think about multi-stakeholder cooperation in a time that is a shifting geopolitical order, the last three decades of an international rule-based order are right now at a conjunction where I’m not sure what the answer is going to be a few years down the line. There’s an uncertainty. There’s an intensified strategic and economic competition globally, and we do not know the outcome of that.

Speaker

Anne Marie Ingtof Milgar

Reason

This comment was particularly insightful because it directly addressed the fundamental tension underlying the entire discussion – how to maintain cooperative frameworks when the geopolitical foundations that enabled them are shifting. It moved beyond technical discussions to acknowledge the existential uncertainty facing multilateral cooperation.

Impact

This comment set a more realistic and sobering tone for the discussion, moving it away from purely technical solutions toward acknowledging the broader political constraints. It influenced subsequent speakers to address the tension between sovereignty and global cooperation more directly.

There’s kind of like a missing link or an elephant in the room that you’re not talking about… the protectionism and fundamentally the fragmentation and the sovereignty concerns you’re talking about are fundamentally about digital free trade… Do you think it’s possible for the multistakeholder model… could we infuse that process with multistakeholder participation the way we have, let’s say, in ICANN and the IGF?

Speaker

Milton Mueller

Reason

This intervention was thought-provoking because it identified a critical gap in the discussion – the panel was discussing governance fragmentation without addressing its root cause in trade disputes. Mueller reframed the entire conversation by pointing out that digital governance issues are fundamentally trade issues, requiring engagement with different institutional frameworks like the WTO.

Impact

This comment forced the panel to confront the limitations of their multi-stakeholder approach when applied to trade negotiations, leading to more nuanced discussions about where multi-stakeholder models can and cannot be effectively applied. It broadened the scope of the conversation beyond traditional internet governance forums.

There is a tension, especially in the current geopolitical climate, between sovereign states and their borders, and them trying to navigate this climate. And tension between states and sovereign borders and the open, interoperable, and globally connected Internet… This tension cannot be resolved just by saying, okay, let’s ditch the multi-stakeholder process, let’s go to more national, intergovernmental, multilateral regulatory processes.

Speaker

Tatjana Trupina

Reason

This comment was insightful because it articulated the core structural tension that underlies all digital governance challenges – the fundamental mismatch between territorial sovereignty and borderless digital networks. It also provided a clear argument for why multi-stakeholder approaches remain necessary despite these tensions.

Impact

This framing helped other panelists structure their responses around this central tension, leading to more focused discussions about how to balance legitimate state concerns with global connectivity. It provided a conceptual framework that other speakers built upon throughout the discussion.

I feel another elephant in the room is perhaps the inequality within the network currently… we have massive inequality in the distribution of value… how are we going to remain together if being together implies weaponization, implies inequality, implies lack of distribution of value?

Speaker

Juan Ortiz

Reason

This comment was particularly thought-provoking because it challenged the fundamental assumption that connectivity and cooperation are inherently good. By highlighting power asymmetries and the weaponization of digital infrastructure, it forced the panel to confront whether the current internet model is worth preserving or needs fundamental restructuring.

Impact

This intervention shifted the discussion from procedural questions about governance mechanisms to substantive questions about power distribution and economic justice. It forced panelists to acknowledge that technical solutions cannot address underlying structural inequalities, leading to more honest discussions about the limitations of current approaches.

We cannot reinforce trust, we cannot reinforce cooperation if we don’t put multi-stakeholder approach in the core of these processes. Transparency and inclusion at the core… this inclusion should not be just talking for participation… it is important for stakeholders to see how their input is actually taken into account.

Speaker

Tatjana Trupina

Reason

This comment was insightful because it moved beyond advocating for multi-stakeholder participation to identifying why such participation often fails – the gap between consultation and actual influence. It highlighted that procedural inclusion without substantive impact undermines trust rather than building it.

Impact

This observation led other panelists to discuss specific mechanisms for ensuring meaningful participation, such as Jorge’s mention of embedding stakeholders in government delegations and the need for transparent feedback on how input is used. It elevated the discussion from advocacy to implementation details.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally shaped the discussion by forcing participants to move beyond technical solutions and procedural fixes to confront the deeper structural and political challenges facing multi-stakeholder digital governance. Anne Marie’s opening acknowledgment of geopolitical uncertainty set a realistic tone that prevented the discussion from becoming overly optimistic about technical solutions. Milton Mueller’s intervention about trade forced recognition that digital governance issues cannot be solved within traditional internet governance forums alone. The comments about power asymmetries and meaningful participation pushed the conversation toward more honest assessments of current limitations. Together, these interventions created a more sophisticated and nuanced discussion that acknowledged both the value of multi-stakeholder approaches and their significant constraints in the current global environment. The result was a conversation that balanced advocacy for existing institutions with realistic assessment of the challenges they face.

Can the multistakeholder model be infused into WTO negotiations to address digital trade and data flow issues?

Speaker

Milton Mueller

Explanation

This addresses the fundamental tension between digital sovereignty and free trade, questioning whether civil society and other stakeholders could participate in WTO processes similar to their participation in ICANN and IGF

Should the IGF mandate be made permanent rather than renewed every few years?

Speaker

Flavia Alves

Explanation

Given the IGF’s 20-year track record and increasing participation from countries like China and Russia, this questions whether the current renewal process is still necessary or if permanent status would provide more stability

How can we ensure meaningful implementation of digital governance frameworks rather than just negotiating text?

Speaker

Anne Marie Ingtof Milgar

Explanation

This highlights the need to focus on actual delivery of outcomes for citizens and countries rather than spending years on textual negotiations, especially given the changing geopolitical backdrop

How can power asymmetries and inequality within the internet ecosystem be addressed through multistakeholder governance?

Speaker

Juan Ortiz

Explanation

This addresses the concentration of power among major tech companies, lack of value distribution, and weaponization of internet infrastructure, questioning what people are being connected to when we talk about connectivity

How can the relationship between WSIS and GDC implementation be structured to avoid duplication while leveraging existing frameworks?

Speaker

Multiple speakers (Veni Markovski, Jason Pielemeier, Jorge Cancio)

Explanation

This explores how to integrate GDC objectives into the established WSIS process without creating parallel or competing frameworks, ensuring efficient use of resources and maintaining multistakeholder participation

How can multistakeholder processes be strengthened to ensure input is actually taken into account rather than being lip service?

Speaker

Tatjana Trupina and Jorge Cancio

Explanation

This addresses the need for transparency and meaningful inclusion in governance processes, ensuring stakeholder contributions have real impact on outcomes

What mechanisms can ensure the informal multistakeholder sounding board for WSIS+20 represents the broader community rather than just an elite group?

Speaker

Jorge Cancio

Explanation

This concerns the structure and representativeness of stakeholder participation in the WSIS+20 negotiation process to ensure genuine community input

Summary

This discussion focused on the launch of New Nordics AI, a strategic initiative funded by the Nordic Council of Ministers to accelerate AI adoption and innovation across the Nordic and Baltic regions. Fredrik Siversen from ICT Norway explained that the project began over a year ago with AI Sweden and has now secured initial funding with support from all Nordic governments. The initiative aims to address the concerning decline in Nordic countries’ global AI rankings, despite their reputation for digital maturity, with rankings dropping from 23rd to 24th position globally.

The center will serve a combined population of over 30 million people across the Nordic and Baltic countries, representing the world’s 10th largest economy. Siversen emphasized that Nordic businesses already operate with regional matrices and leadership structures, making this collaboration a natural extension of existing relationships. The primary goals include speeding up AI adoption across businesses and public sectors, strengthening Nordic leadership in AI, and ensuring all organizations develop AI strategies.

Marianne Wilhelmsen, State Secretary from Norway’s Ministry of Digitalization, highlighted the importance of trustworthy AI, particularly for public sector applications where trust is essential currency. She noted that Nordic countries share democratic values, transparency principles, and human rights commitments that provide a strong foundation for collaboration. The initiative will focus on developing language models for Nordic languages, building competence in small and medium-sized enterprises, and leveraging the region’s high-quality data, especially in healthcare.

Both speakers emphasized the Baltic countries’ contributions, particularly Estonia’s digital leadership and innovations like Bolt. The center officially launches in Helsinki in October, and they are currently seeking a managing director based in Stockholm.

Keypoints

**Major Discussion Points:**

– **Launch and funding of New Nordics AI initiative** – The Nordic Council of Ministers has funded a strategic initiative to accelerate AI adoption and innovation across Nordic and Baltic regions, with an official launch planned for October in Helsinki

– **Nordic competitiveness concerns in AI** – Despite being digitally mature, Nordic countries are dropping in global AI rankings (from 23rd to 24th position), highlighting the need to speed up AI adoption to maintain competitiveness against global trends

– **Regional collaboration advantages** – The Nordic-Baltic region represents 30+ million inhabitants and the world’s 10th largest economy, sharing common democratic values, cultural ties, and business frameworks that make collaboration natural and effective

– **Public-private cooperation and data sharing** – Discussion of how government and private sector can better collaborate, particularly around high-quality Nordic data (especially healthcare data) and upcoming EU data spaces initiatives

– **Implementation priorities and trust** – Focus on developing trustworthy AI systems, particularly for public sector use, while helping small and medium-sized businesses adopt AI safely and effectively

**Overall Purpose:**

The discussion serves as an announcement and explanation of the New Nordics AI initiative, aimed at informing stakeholders about this new regional collaboration to accelerate AI adoption and maintain Nordic competitiveness in the global AI landscape.

**Overall Tone:**

The tone is consistently professional, optimistic, and collaborative throughout. Both speakers maintain an enthusiastic yet pragmatic approach, acknowledging challenges (dropping AI rankings, competitiveness concerns) while emphasizing opportunities and shared Nordic values. The tone remains constructive and forward-looking from start to finish, with no significant shifts in mood or approach during the conversation.

Speakers

– **Moderator**: Role – Discussion moderator/host; leads the lightning talk session about New Nordics AI

– **Marianne Wilhelmsen**: Title – State Secretary of the Ministry of Digitalization and Public Governance; Area of expertise – Government digitalization policy, AI strategy implementation, public sector digital transformation

– **Fredrik Syversen**: Title – Director for Strategy and Business Development at ICT Norway; Area of expertise – Private sector technology advocacy, AI adoption in business, Nordic technology collaboration (Note: Name appears as both “Fredrik Siversen” and “Fredrik Syversen” in transcript, but refers to same person)

Additional speakers:

None identified beyond the provided speakers names list.

# New Nordics AI Initiative: A Strategic Response to Regional AI Competitiveness Challenges

## Executive Summary

This discussion centred on the launch of New Nordics AI, a strategic initiative funded by the Nordic Council of Ministers to accelerate artificial intelligence adoption and innovation across the Nordic and Baltic regions. The conversation featured Fredrik Syversen, Director for Strategy and Business Development at ICT Norway (the private interest organization for technology companies in Norway), and Marianne Wilhelmsen, State Secretary of the Ministry of Digitalisation and Public Governance.

The initiative, which started a little over a year ago with AI Sweden, emerges from concerns about maintaining Nordic competitiveness in AI whilst leveraging the region’s strengths in digital maturity and democratic values. Both speakers emphasised the need for accelerated AI adoption to sustain the Nordic welfare state model amid demographic challenges.

## Initiative Background and Rationale

### AI Competitiveness Concerns

Syversen highlighted concerns about Nordic AI performance, noting challenges in global AI rankings: “when the AI wave hit us, we kind of didn’t take it as seriously as we should.” However, Wilhelmsen referenced Oxford Insights data suggesting Norway ranks considerably higher, particularly due to strong public sector digitalisation. The speakers were referencing different indices, illustrating varying assessments of regional AI standing.

### Demographic and Economic Context

Syversen provided context for the initiative’s urgency: “all the Nordics I think those for all Europe what we’re heading at is more less money and less people. That’s not a good combination.” This demographic reality positions AI as essential for societal sustainability.

The combined Nordic and Baltic region represents over 30 million inhabitants and constitutes the world’s 10th largest economy, providing significant leverage for regional cooperation.

## Structure and Objectives

### Funding and Governance

The initiative has secured funding from the Nordic Council of Ministers with support from all Nordic governments. Funding confirmation came last week, and the centre will officially launch in Helsinki in October during Finland’s Nordic Council presidency.

The centre is currently recruiting board members and seeking a managing director to be based in Stockholm. Applications are being accepted through the new-nordics-ai website.

### Core Objectives

The centre’s primary goals include:

– Accelerating AI adoption across business and public sectors

– Strengthening Nordic leadership in artificial intelligence

– Ensuring comprehensive AI strategy development across organisations

– Leveraging regional advantages in data quality and democratic values

– Facilitating public-private collaboration

## Regional Collaboration Benefits

### Natural Partnership Foundation

Both speakers emphasised that Nordic collaboration builds on existing relationships. Syversen noted that “Nordic businesses already operate with regional matrices and leadership structures,” making AI collaboration a natural development.

Wilhelmsen highlighted shared “democratic values, transparency principles, and human rights commitments” as foundations for developing trustworthy AI systems aligned with regional governance principles.

### Baltic Integration

The inclusion of Baltic countries offers strategic advantages. Wilhelmsen praised Baltic nations’ “agility in technology adoption and strong public sector transformation,” whilst Syversen highlighted Estonia’s leadership: “Estonia leads Europe in digital innovation with companies like Bolt, providing valuable expertise.”

Baltic integration provides expanded talent pools, innovation capacity, and opportunities for collaborative language model development, particularly between Finnish and Estonian languages.

## Implementation Priorities

### Trustworthy AI Focus

Trust emerged as a central theme. Wilhelmsen emphasised that “trustworthy AI is essential, especially for public sector applications where trust is the most important currency.” She referenced implementation challenges in Norwegian municipalities, acknowledging real-world failures in AI-based decision-making systems.

This focus on trust distinguishes the Nordic approach, reflecting the region’s governance values and public sector requirements.

### Data Sharing and European Integration

Wilhelmsen identified high-quality data as a key Nordic advantage, particularly in the health sector. Both speakers acknowledged the importance of European data spaces in health and energy sectors, with Syversen describing these as “mandatory collaboration opportunities.”

Norway is developing new data sharing legislation and establishing a data prioritisation council to facilitate strategic data sharing whilst engaging with European frameworks.

## Next Steps and Timeline

### Immediate Priorities

– October launch in Helsinki with ministerial participation

– Board recruitment and managing director selection

– European data spaces engagement in health and energy sectors

– AI Act implementation targeted for next summer

– Continued development of data sharing legislation

### Strategic Positioning

Syversen highlighted that Nordic cooperation enables influence in European AI policy: “coming from Norway, we can piggyback on our Nordic neighbours to influence what is happening in the European Commission.” This positioning provides access to EU AI funding and amplifies Nordic influence in European policy development.

The collaboration addresses Norway’s position as a non-EU member seeking participation in European AI initiatives, using Nordic partnerships as a bridge to broader European engagement.

## Conclusion

The New Nordics AI initiative represents a strategic response to competitive pressures and demographic challenges facing the Nordic and Baltic regions. Built on shared values and complementary capabilities, the collaboration aims to accelerate AI adoption whilst maintaining the trustworthy AI principles that distinguish the Nordic approach.

Success will depend on effective implementation of the planned October launch, successful recruitment of leadership, and maintaining alignment between public and private sector stakeholders. The initiative offers a distinctive model for regional AI cooperation that balances rapid adoption with democratic values and public sector requirements.

Moderator: Welcome to this lightning talk here about the new Nordics AI. Last week we got the news that the Nordic Council of Ministers are funding a strategic initiative called New Nordics AI. The objective of this initiative is to accelerate AI adoption and innovation across the Nordic and Baltic region. Here to talk more about this regional initiative is Marianne Wilhelmsen, State Secretary of the Ministry of Digitalization and Public Governance, and Fredrik Siversen, Director for Strategy and Business Development at ICT Norway, and one of the partners in this new initiative. Fredrik, tell us more about New Nordics AI.

Fredrik Syversen: I will. First of all, thank you. As you said, my name is Fredrik Siversen. I work daily for ICT Norway, which is the Norwegian translation. We are the public. We’re not the public, we’re the private interest organization for technology companies here in Norway. So with that said, this project started a little over a year ago with interest from the Nordic Council of Ministers, started off in Sweden with our partner AI Sweden, and then took it further with partners all over the Nordics. And as you mentioned, last week we got the confirmation from our funding partner, the Nordic Council of Ministers with Nordic Innovation, that we have secured the initial funding for getting started. And this is a project that is supported by all the governments all over the Nordics. And we also have to mention that by time we expect all the Baltic countries to be a part of the Nordic AI Center. So this is a little bit of the backdrop. I think all Nordic countries are seen as mature digitally, and that is of course very true. But if you look at how we look at the global AI index, the picture is not so pleasant to look at. We are actually dropping from 23 to 24. There’s lots of reasons to that, and I guess State Secretary can probably dive into some of the reasons. But I think the lesson learned here is that we are pretty mature from the get-go, and when the AI wave hit us, we kind of didn’t take it as seriously as we should. And the opportunity is not missed, but we have to speed up, and that’s the reason behind the center. And as we come from Europe, we have been bombarded with different reports from the European Commission on the state of business in the European area. And it’s not so pleasant to read that either. And those of you who have read the Drager Report, we know that the competitiveness of Europe needs to be sped up, and that also goes from Norway. So that’s kind of the backdrop as well. And why the Nordics? So Nordics combined with the Baltics, almost a little over 30 million inhabitants, 10th largest economy in the world. That’s a widow without the Baltics, to be honest. But still, it gives an opportunity not to be missed, both in terms of the size, but not the least in terms of what we can present to the world when it comes from Nordic values, Nordic opportunities, Nordic innovation, so forth, so on. And what are we going to achieve? So give me a hands up when I’m reaching my five minutes here. But I think what we are really looking forward to, and really are eager to, is to speed up adoption. We need all our businesses, we need all our public sector to at least have some strategy concerning AI. And that’s kind of the raison d’etre, and that’s what we are really aiming at. And we have projects in the get-go that will actually achieve this. We need stronger both national and Nordic leadership, and that is also one of the reasons behind this Nordic project. And of course, when you are looking at it from inside out, from Norway to the Nordics, all of our businesses are mostly in all Nordic countries. They are led Nordically, their internal matrix is almost always Nordic. I have to say, all the headquarters are not always in Norway, they have to be in Sweden or Copenhagen for some reason. But the opportunity here is there, and we are ready to launch. So this coming fall, October, we are gathering in Helsinki, you’re all welcome. The Finland is heading the Nordic Council of Ministers that half year, hence we’re in Helsinki, and the launch will be there with hopefully a lot of ministers. We have an election before that, so let’s see. But that’s where we’re going to start. So just to end up with this slide, that if you’re interested to work with us, these are some of the people that you can contact depending on the country. But I think all of us are interested to hear from you. So that’s my five minute pitch to why you should be a part of the Nordic AI Center. So Katrine, back to you.

Moderator: Thank you, Frederik. Marianne, why are Norway and the other ministries funding this center?

Marianne Wilhelmsen: Thank you, and thank you for the invitation. And of course, also just want to take the opportunity to thank everyone here for coming to this year’s IGF and engaging in all the various discussions. Well, first of all, we need to accelerate the AI adoption, and we have a strong and long history of collaborating with our neighbors. Not just because they’re our neighbors, but of course, because we have a lot in common, as Frederik says. We have cultural ties. We share the same democratic values, freedom of speech, transparency, human rights, and working together to be able to share experiences and create arenas where we can collaborate, I think will be very important for us to be able to accelerate and speed up the adoption. So when it comes to this initiative, it’s a really important initiative, and I am very, very glad that it got the funding. In terms of the Nordic cooperation, is this particularly important in these days, both towards Europe and the world in general? I would say so. And of course, I see we see it, this IGF is also a testament of our strong ties. This year, later today, we’re having a reception together with the Nordic Council. Just a little bit later today, I’m having lunch with my colleagues from the Nordics and the Baltics over at the hotel just by here. So definitely an important time, of course, with everything happening around in the world. And I think when it comes to AI, we have a lot we can collaborate on. The language models, for example, ensuring that we have large language models that are built on our languages and also our contexts. We need to get, as Frederik said, the small and the medium-sized companies to be able to adapt, building competence in all areas. We see it’s a huge challenge when it comes to that, to having knowledge and competence on how to adopt AI, especially in a safe and secure way in the small and medium-sized businesses, as well as in the public sector, especially. So working together on initiatives like this can help mitigate those risks and also unlock some of the large opportunities that we have.

Fredrik Syversen: Yeah, I just want to emphasize that, I mean, the Nordics, at least we like to pride ourselves in having shared value sets and shared the business mindset as well. We can always argue that there are differences between us, but I think from a European perspective, you would say that if you look up north, where the Nordics lie, if you look at the map, it’s where much of the innovation, if you look at the fastest-growing innovation, some of the indexes will point north when it comes to Europe. And I think that opportunity is not to be missed, especially coming from Norway. Norway has to be said, it’s not a part of the European Union, but we are as close as it gets, to put it like that, we’re inside the internal market. But from that perspective also, coming from Norway, we can piggyback on our Nordic neighbors to influence what is happening in the European Commission and Europe at large. But also, I think if you look at, there’s some new conflict lines here, it has to be said, over the Atlantic that has not been there before. So in that perspective, also, I think working more on the Nordic level is very much politically correct these days. That being said, I think also it makes total business sense. And I think that is kind of the fuel that we are needing to get this engine off the ground and get this plane in the air, so to say. And I think we also have opportunities inside the European R&D environment being kind of a setup already for being a part of different European initiatives, especially, of course, on the AI, which if you look at all the numbers that have been flying around, it’s billions of euros that’s going to be heading not our particular way, but going to AI. And we need to take our fair share of that coming from the Nordics. That’s a given.

Marianne Wilhelmsen: And I just also want to say, like earlier, you showed us some numbers on where Norway, for example, stand, and there are definitely. Challenges, but we also had you know in our government We recently launched our digitalization strategy and one of the the follow-ups from that is that we have These governmental digital forums where the ministers come together and just a few weeks ago We had AI on the agenda there and we have had Oxford Insights coming president the global index on AI readiness And we saw that Norway is Not as bad as you your numbers show We’re we’re quite far high up and one of the reasons for that is our strong public sector and how digitalized it is And I think when we bring together all the Nordic countries, we have different perspectives. We have different challenges and we have different What can I say like? Stuff that we do great, you know where we where we accelerate and we when we bring those those together we can all kind of Learn from each other and build and an increase Get up on those numbers

Moderator: This center is called the new Nordics AI So it’s also including the Baltic countries, even not if they’re not part already, but it will be How do you think the Baltic states can strengthen this cooperation?

Marianne Wilhelmsen: well, like I just said I It will add added value we see that the Baltic countries they have Shown a lot like agility in and adopting technology and I think that They also have a strong public sector and and has shown that the transformation in the public sector as well That they have yeah a lot of efforts in Accelerating that so I think we have a lot to learn from each other and then also, of course the the talent pool that we can bring in so Being close And collaborating also with the Baltics. I think it’s a Nice like it adds value to this Nordic initiative.

Fredrik Syversen: I just want to add on that I mean everybody knows of the of the Estonian miracle So to say that they’re kind of leading Europe in some parts at least and we all know We all know bolt, of course coming out of Estonia. We’ve already used but well on that note I mean innovation that comes out of the Baltics are kind of top top top and The possibility to kind of link into that and to use that as a fuel for further Nordic new Nordic collaborations I would say that’s going to be extremely important and I can’t wait to get those Partners on board because that will really set a new agenda for how we can work both inside the EU but also Towards global interests. I think we also need to kind of acknowledge that what’s happening in the Baltics here are super super important Especially we it’s easy to forget Lithuania Latvia But also these countries have great innovations coming out of their their countries And as you said, they’re also like big on public sector and it shouldn’t be too big but but big is okay And I think to draw upon that it’s also interesting. Of course, there’s some language There as well Finnish and Estonian is very closely linked. There’s something other with Lacta and Lithuania Scandinavia’s closely so working on this language models, which also kind of a side project to this center is also Getting better if you get the Baltics on board

Moderator: You mentioned the Norwegian strategy the digitalization strategy What are the key priorities for the Norwegian government in terms of AI and digitalization?

Marianne Wilhelmsen: Well, first of all, we need AI that we can trust And of course when you see I know I’m talking a lot about the public sector here So I’ll get on to to the business sector as well When we see that we adopt AI in the public sector trust is essential because it’s our most important currency and we’ve had municipalities in Norway leveraging AI and creating reports as decision-making foundation and it went To say at least and we need to learn from those mistakes, you know, and and ensure that those kind of usage of AI Does not happen but in Norway, we we see AI as a tool to To nationally, you know secure our welfare state and secured equal opportunities for all we need to work more efficiently In order to to keep the level up and we also see it as a tool for the digital and green transformation So those are the most kind of important things that are also reflected on the on the agenda here at IGF right now and of course We are implementing the AI act We’re gonna be ready Yes the same time as rest of the Europe next summer at least we’re working as as fast as we can to enable that and have put in place a lot of Infrastructure the the work on the large language models and And come what do you call it again high-tech computing no the law Yeah Sorry, but at least computing with powers, of course, yeah, and and We want it to we’ve created AI Norway, which is like the government’s AI Arena and we wanted to help accelerate adoption and and not be Not be something like a barrier but more Help make sense

Fredrik Syversen: I just want to say that I mean from a business perspective I think if you don’t get on the AI train, you’re about to lose your business some companies Especially in my business which is software business if we’re into package software You have delivered the same meal all over the years Some of these things can be done like in two seconds not two seconds, but maybe two minutes So you need to change your models and you need to change your business models fast because we don’t want to be left behind I think that’s super super important and I don’t think we kind of wake up and kind of face that reality That’s going to be very important for this center to get that awareness out on the public sector side. I agree totally I mean all the Nordics I think those for all Europe what we’re heading at is more less money and less people That’s not a good combination And I think we have left we kind of want to it in the toolbox That’s technology and technology with AI is something other than just technology and if you look at the health care sector the Opportunities there are so great. And if we kind of put that value set in the bottom or in the top if you like to create those Opportunities or does that Solutions based on AI that is something really can drive our public sector to be not only trustworthy Because that’s super important. But also that we trust that the Service delivery is going to be there. That’s also going to be an issue where you have less people So there’s a lot of issues that is concerning air, but also concerning that the society at large

Marianne Wilhelmsen: Yeah and I just want to add to that of course that AI is only as Good as the data that you train it on and I think that when it comes to Nordic countries and I can mainly speak for Norway We have a lot of high quality data, especially from the health sector and having initiatives And infrastructures or platforms where we can share that kind of data as far as we can I think that will be very important not only for For the public sector and for the health care, for example, but also for our businesses going forward

Moderator: Yeah, that brings me on to the next question in that is You’re representing public your private. How can the public and private maybe cooperate better, especially in terms of data sharing?

Marianne Wilhelmsen: Well, I think that these kind of arenas are one of the Like the best starting points that we have to ensure collaboration and to have like contact points where we can get together and and talk and see the challenges and also what kind of like Well, what is the status on the regulations? What do we need to improve? Where are the barriers for us to be able to share for example the the data or to accelerate within a large no small and medium-sized businesses.

Fredrik Syversen: Well, I just want to mention if coming from Europe you may be familiar with the data spaces that the European Union are Trying to provide these days. It’s going to be one in energy It’s going to be especially one in health coming up in the next three four years and then so on and so forth These are spaces that are going to create just to share data and if the Nordics can work together on that one inside the European health spaces that will be an opportunity that we have to take because this is something that’s going to be mandatory for all our Countries even Norway, but we’re outside the European Union health is first energy is second These are two projects that we already are working on in the Nordic AI Center So that is something that just needs to be done in in the Nordic Nordic framework so to say.

Marianne Wilhelmsen: and I think when it comes to for example data in the health ministry Which is not my ministry. I know that there are a lot of processes as an and Regulation work going on right now in my ministry. We are working with the new data sharing law that will come later this This year hopefully and also a new data Prioritization kind of council that would help us map out which kind of data we should prioritize to share first

Moderator: Thank you so much. So what’s next for the center now Frederick?

Fredrik Syversen: It’s summer holiday, I wouldn’t say that but we’re looking forward to October, of course, so we need to get our things together We’re looking for board members. We’re looking for the initial set of we actually looking for a managing director at these days for the they are eccentric if you want to work out of Stockholm be the GM of the Nordic AI Center, please look at our website new Nordic say I and Apply because that’s what we are looking forward now is to get the managing director on board. That’s going to be the first step

Moderator: Thank you, Marianne Frederick and good luck with new Nordic say I thank you. Thank have a great day You

Agreement points

Baltic countries bring valuable innovation and expertise to Nordic collaboration

Speakers

– Fredrik Syversen
– Marianne Wilhelmsen

Arguments

Estonia leads Europe in digital innovation with companies like Bolt, providing valuable expertise

Baltic countries demonstrate agility in technology adoption and strong public sector transformation

Summary

Both speakers agree that Baltic countries, particularly Estonia, offer significant technological expertise and innovation capacity that will strengthen the Nordic AI initiative through their proven track record in digital transformation and successful companies.

Topics

Development | Economic

Nordic collaboration is natural and strategically advantageous

Speakers

– Fredrik Syversen
– Marianne Wilhelmsen

Arguments

Combined Nordic and Baltic region represents 30+ million inhabitants and 10th largest economy globally, creating significant opportunity

Strong cultural ties, shared democratic values, and common business mindset make Nordic collaboration natural and effective

Summary

Both speakers emphasize that Nordic countries have strong foundations for collaboration based on shared values, cultural ties, and economic scale, making regional cooperation both natural and strategically beneficial.

Topics

Economic | Sociocultural

AI adoption acceleration is urgently needed

Speakers

– Fredrik Syversen
– Marianne Wilhelmsen

Arguments

Nordic countries are digitally mature but dropping in global AI rankings from 23rd to 24th position, requiring acceleration

AI adoption acceleration is essential to maintain welfare state and ensure equal opportunities

Summary

Both speakers agree that despite Nordic countries’ digital maturity, there is an urgent need to accelerate AI adoption to maintain competitiveness and sustain public services.

Topics

Development | Economic

Public sector efficiency through AI is crucial for future sustainability

Speakers

– Fredrik Syversen
– Marianne Wilhelmsen

Arguments

Businesses must adopt AI quickly or risk losing competitiveness, particularly in software sector

AI serves as tool for digital and green transformation while securing welfare state efficiency

Summary

Both speakers recognize that AI is essential for maintaining efficiency and competitiveness in both private and public sectors, with particular emphasis on the public sector’s need to deliver services with potentially fewer resources.

Topics

Development | Economic

High-quality data is a Nordic competitive advantage

Speakers

– Fredrik Syversen
– Marianne Wilhelmsen

Arguments

European data spaces in health and energy sectors provide mandatory collaboration opportunities

Nordic countries possess high-quality data, especially in health sector, valuable for AI development

Summary

Both speakers acknowledge that Nordic countries have access to high-quality data, particularly in the health sector, which represents a significant competitive advantage for AI development and European collaboration.

Topics

Infrastructure | Legal and regulatory

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers view European integration and compliance as strategically important, with Fredrik emphasizing funding opportunities and influence, while Marianne focuses on regulatory alignment and institutional development.

Speakers

– Fredrik Syversen
– Marianne Wilhelmsen

Arguments

Nordic collaboration allows influence in European Commission decisions and access to billions in EU AI funding

Norway implementing AI Act alongside EU and establishing AI Norway as government’s AI arena

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Economic

Both speakers see linguistic and cultural connections as practical advantages for collaboration, with Fredrik focusing on language model development and Marianne emphasizing talent pool expansion.

Speakers

– Fredrik Syversen
– Marianne Wilhelmsen

Arguments

Language connections between Finnish-Estonian and other regional languages support collaborative language model development

Baltic inclusion expands talent pool and adds innovation capacity to Nordic collaboration

Topics

Sociocultural | Development

Unexpected consensus

Trust as fundamental requirement for AI implementation

Speakers

– Fredrik Syversen
– Marianne Wilhelmsen

Arguments

Businesses must adopt AI quickly or risk losing competitiveness, particularly in software sector

Trustworthy AI is essential, especially for public sector applications where trust is the most important currency

Explanation

Despite Fredrik representing private sector interests focused on rapid adoption and competitiveness, and Marianne representing public sector concerns about trust and reliability, both implicitly agree that successful AI implementation requires balancing speed with trustworthiness, suggesting a mature understanding that rushed adoption without proper safeguards could be counterproductive.

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Data sharing infrastructure requires both regulatory framework and collaborative platforms

Speakers

– Fredrik Syversen
– Marianne Wilhelmsen

Arguments

European data spaces in health and energy sectors provide mandatory collaboration opportunities

New data sharing law and data prioritization council being developed to facilitate strategic data sharing

Explanation

There is unexpected alignment between the private sector representative’s focus on European data spaces as business opportunities and the public sector representative’s emphasis on regulatory frameworks, suggesting both sectors recognize that successful data sharing requires both top-down regulation and bottom-up collaboration platforms.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Infrastructure

Overall assessment

Summary

The speakers demonstrate remarkably high consensus across all major discussion points, including the strategic value of Nordic-Baltic collaboration, the urgency of AI adoption, the importance of leveraging high-quality data, and the need for both public and private sector transformation. Their agreement spans economic, regulatory, and sociocultural dimensions.

Consensus level

Very high consensus with complementary perspectives rather than conflicting viewpoints. The private and public sector representatives reinforce each other’s arguments while bringing different sectoral expertise. This strong alignment suggests favorable conditions for successful implementation of the Nordic AI initiative, as key stakeholders share common understanding of challenges, opportunities, and strategic approaches.

Different viewpoints

Assessment of Nordic AI competitiveness position

Speakers

– Fredrik Syversen
– Marianne Wilhelmsen

Arguments

Nordic countries are digitally mature but dropping in global AI rankings from 23rd to 24th position, requiring acceleration

Norway is not as bad as Fredrik’s numbers show, ranking quite high up due to strong digitalized public sector

Summary

Fredrik presents a more pessimistic view of Nordic AI competitiveness citing dropping rankings from 23-24th position, while Marianne counters with Oxford Insights data showing Norway ranking much higher, particularly due to its strong public sector digitalization

Topics

Economic | Development

Unexpected differences

Contradictory assessments of Nordic AI performance despite representing the same initiative

Speakers

– Fredrik Syversen
– Marianne Wilhelmsen

Arguments

Nordic countries are digitally mature but dropping in global AI rankings from 23rd to 24th position, requiring acceleration

Norway is not as bad as Fredrik’s numbers show, ranking quite high up due to strong digitalized public sector

Explanation

It is unexpected that representatives of the same Nordic AI initiative would present contradictory data about their region’s AI competitiveness. This disagreement on fundamental performance metrics could undermine the credibility of their joint initiative and suggests lack of coordination on key messaging

Topics

Economic | Development

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion shows minimal direct disagreement, with the main conflict being contradictory assessments of Nordic AI competitiveness rankings. Most differences stem from sectoral perspectives rather than fundamental disagreements.

Disagreement level

Low level of disagreement with moderate implications. While speakers generally align on goals and strategies, the contradictory performance data presents a credibility issue that could affect stakeholder confidence in the initiative’s leadership and coordination.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers view European integration and compliance as strategically important, with Fredrik emphasizing funding opportunities and influence, while Marianne focuses on regulatory alignment and institutional development.

Speakers

– Fredrik Syversen
– Marianne Wilhelmsen

Arguments

Nordic collaboration allows influence in European Commission decisions and access to billions in EU AI funding

Norway implementing AI Act alongside EU and establishing AI Norway as government’s AI arena

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Economic

Both speakers see linguistic and cultural connections as practical advantages for collaboration, with Fredrik focusing on language model development and Marianne emphasizing talent pool expansion.

Speakers

– Fredrik Syversen
– Marianne Wilhelmsen

Arguments

Language connections between Finnish-Estonian and other regional languages support collaborative language model development

Baltic inclusion expands talent pool and adds innovation capacity to Nordic collaboration

Topics

Sociocultural | Development

Key takeaways

The New Nordics AI initiative has secured initial funding from the Nordic Council of Ministers to accelerate AI adoption across Nordic and Baltic regions

Nordic countries are digitally mature but falling behind in global AI rankings (dropping from 23rd to 24th), requiring urgent acceleration efforts

The combined Nordic-Baltic region represents 30+ million inhabitants and the 10th largest economy globally, creating significant collaborative opportunities

Trustworthy AI is essential, particularly for public sector applications where trust is the primary currency

AI adoption is critical for maintaining welfare states, ensuring equal opportunities, and supporting digital/green transformation

High-quality Nordic data, especially in healthcare, represents a valuable asset for AI development and training

Public-private collaboration through initiatives like this center is essential for addressing regulatory barriers and accelerating adoption

Baltic countries bring valuable agility in technology adoption and innovation capacity to strengthen the partnership

Resolutions and action items

Center will officially launch in Helsinki in October during Finland’s Nordic Council presidency with ministerial participation

Currently recruiting board members for the Nordic AI Center

Actively seeking a managing director to be based in Stockholm – applications being accepted through new-nordics-ai website

Working on European data spaces projects in health and energy sectors within the Nordic framework

Norway implementing AI Act alongside EU with target completion by next summer

Developing new data sharing law and data prioritization council in Norway

Unresolved issues

Specific timeline for full Baltic country integration into the initiative remains unclear

Details about funding amounts and long-term financial sustainability not specified

Concrete mechanisms for data sharing between countries and public-private sectors need further development

Specific strategies for addressing the gap in AI competence among small and medium-sized businesses require more detail

How to effectively coordinate language model development across different Nordic and Baltic languages needs clarification

Suggested compromises

None identified

But if you look at how we look at the global AI index, the picture is not so pleasant to look at. We are actually dropping from 23 to 24… when the AI wave hit us, we kind of didn’t take it as seriously as we should.

Speaker

Fredrik Siversen

Reason

This comment is particularly insightful because it challenges the Nordic countries’ self-perception as digital leaders. It introduces a sobering reality check that contradicts the common narrative of Nordic digital excellence, suggesting complacency may have led to falling behind in AI adoption.

Impact

This comment set the tone for the entire discussion by establishing urgency and justifying the need for the Nordic AI Center. It shifted the conversation from celebration of Nordic digital achievements to acknowledgment of current deficiencies and the need for accelerated action.

I mean all the Nordics I think those for all Europe what we’re heading at is more less money and less people. That’s not a good combination. And I think we have left we kind of want to it in the toolbox. That’s technology and technology with AI is something other than just technology.

Speaker

Fredrik Siversen

Reason

This comment provides a profound demographic and economic reality check, identifying the fundamental challenge facing Nordic societies: declining resources and aging populations. It positions AI not just as an opportunity but as a necessity for societal sustainability.

Impact

This observation deepened the discussion by moving beyond business competitiveness to existential societal challenges. It reinforced why AI adoption is critical for maintaining Nordic welfare states and public services, adding weight to the public sector focus of the initiative.

AI is only as good as the data that you train it on and I think that when it comes to Nordic countries… We have a lot of high quality data, especially from the health sector

Speaker

Marianne Wilhelmsen

Reason

This comment is insightful because it identifies a unique Nordic competitive advantage – high-quality data, particularly in healthcare. It shifts the focus from Nordic weaknesses to potential strengths and strategic assets.

Impact

This comment redirected the conversation toward Nordic advantages and practical collaboration opportunities. It led directly to the subsequent discussion about data sharing between public and private sectors and European data spaces, opening up concrete pathways for the center’s work.

We need AI that we can trust… it’s our most important currency and we’ve had municipalities in Norway leveraging AI and creating reports as decision-making foundation and it went… to say at least

Speaker

Marianne Wilhelmsen

Reason

This comment introduces the critical concept of trust as the foundation of AI adoption in the public sector, while acknowledging real failures. It’s thought-provoking because it connects Nordic values (transparency, trust) with practical AI implementation challenges.

Impact

This comment elevated the discussion from technical and economic considerations to fundamental questions of governance and public trust. It established trust as a central theme and differentiated the Nordic approach from purely efficiency-driven AI adoption models.

Coming from Norway, we can piggyback on our Nordic neighbors to influence what is happening in the European Commission and Europe at large… there’s some new conflict lines here… over the Atlantic that has not been there before.

Speaker

Fredrik Siversen

Reason

This comment reveals sophisticated geopolitical thinking, acknowledging how Nordic cooperation can amplify influence within EU structures while hinting at changing transatlantic relationships. It positions the AI center within broader strategic considerations.

Impact

This comment broadened the discussion’s scope from regional cooperation to global strategic positioning. It introduced the idea that Nordic AI collaboration has implications beyond technology adoption – it’s about maintaining influence and relevance in a changing global order.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally shaped the discussion by establishing a narrative arc from complacency to urgency to strategic opportunity. Fredrik’s initial reality check about Nordic AI rankings created the foundational tension that justified the entire initiative. The demographic challenge comment deepened this urgency by connecting AI to societal sustainability. Marianne’s observations about trust and data quality then pivoted the conversation toward Nordic competitive advantages and values-based differentiation. Finally, the geopolitical positioning comment elevated the discussion to strategic statecraft level. Together, these comments transformed what could have been a routine policy announcement into a nuanced exploration of Nordic identity, challenges, and opportunities in the global AI landscape. The interplay between the speakers – with Fredrik providing business urgency and Marianne offering governmental perspective on trust and regulation – created a comprehensive framework for understanding why Nordic AI cooperation is both necessary and potentially transformative.

How can we ensure all businesses and public sector organizations develop AI strategies?

Speaker

Fredrik Siversen

Explanation

This was identified as a core objective of the Nordic AI Center – ensuring all businesses and public sector have at least some strategy concerning AI, but the specific mechanisms weren’t detailed

What are the specific reasons behind the Nordic countries dropping in global AI rankings from 23 to 24?

Speaker

Fredrik Siversen

Explanation