Uncategorized

Summary

This discussion focused on the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) Plus 20 review process and the future of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), taking place during the 20th IGF in Oslo. The session featured co-facilitators from Kenya and Albania leading the WSIS Plus 20 process, along with the UN Under-Secretary General for Economic and Social Affairs, who outlined the review timeline culminating in a high-level UN General Assembly meeting in December.

The co-facilitators reported hearing diverse stakeholder views on grounding the review in original WSIS principles while addressing technological advances like artificial intelligence and digital public infrastructure. A key discussion point emerged around the relationship between WSIS and the Global Digital Compact (GDC), with varying opinions on whether WSIS should remain the overarching framework or whether the processes should run parallel courses. Participants emphasized the need to avoid duplication between these initiatives while ensuring coherence and synergy.

Strong convergence was noted on preserving WSIS’s foundational vision of a people-centered, inclusive, and development-oriented information society. There was widespread agreement on maintaining the multi-stakeholder approach, addressing capacity building needs, and tackling the persistent digital divide. The co-facilitators announced plans for an informal multi-stakeholder sounding board to facilitate ongoing dialogue and committed to holding joint sessions between governments and non-government stakeholders.

A subsequent panel discussion featured government ministers and organization representatives who highlighted WSIS’s achievements over 20 years, including increased internet connectivity from 17% to 67% globally. They identified emerging challenges including AI governance, data protection, online safety for children, and environmental impacts of ICT. Panelists advocated for a permanent IGF mandate, better integration of national and regional IGFs, and strengthened coordination between WSIS, GDC, and the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals. The discussion concluded with calls for enhanced multi-stakeholder participation at national levels and continued commitment to an open, interoperable internet based on trust and voluntary cooperation.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **WSIS Plus 20 Review Process and Timeline**: The discussion focused extensively on the ongoing World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) Plus 20 review process, with co-facilitators from Kenya and Albania providing updates on consultations, stakeholder engagement, and the timeline leading to a high-level UN General Assembly meeting in December.

– **Future of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF)**: A central theme was strengthening and potentially making the IGF permanent, with discussions about extending its mandate, improving its structure, ensuring predictable funding, and enhancing its role in global digital governance while maintaining its multi-stakeholder approach.

– **Integration and Coordination Between Digital Governance Processes**: Participants emphasized the need to avoid duplication and achieve coherence between WSIS, the Global Digital Compact (GDC), and the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals, with proposals for joint implementation roadmaps and better coordination mechanisms.

– **Emerging Technologies and WSIS Action Lines**: The conversation addressed how to incorporate new technologies like artificial intelligence, data governance, and digital public infrastructure within the existing WSIS framework, with many arguing that the current action lines are technology-neutral and flexible enough to accommodate these developments.

– **Multi-stakeholder Engagement and Inclusivity**: Throughout the discussion, there was strong emphasis on maintaining and strengthening multi-stakeholder participation, particularly ensuring meaningful involvement of developing countries, youth, women, small and medium enterprises, and civil society in both global and national-level processes.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion served as a key consultation session during the 20th IGF, allowing co-facilitators of the WSIS Plus 20 review process to gather input from the multi-stakeholder community on how to update and strengthen the WSIS framework for the next decades. The session aimed to capture diverse perspectives on the future of digital governance, the role of IGF, and how various UN digital processes should work together coherently.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a constructive and collaborative tone throughout, characterized by mutual respect and shared commitment to the multi-stakeholder model. Participants expressed cautious optimism about the WSIS Plus 20 process while acknowledging the challenges ahead. The tone was professional yet passionate, with speakers demonstrating deep engagement with the issues and genuine concern for preserving the inclusive spirit of WSIS while adapting to new realities. There was an underlying sense of urgency about the December deadline, but also confidence in the community’s ability to work together toward positive outcomes.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Jorge Cancio** – Session moderator/co-moderator

– **Karianne Tung** – Minister (Norway), representing Norwegian government

– **Thomas Schneider** – Session moderator/co-moderator, Ambassador (Switzerland)

– **Kurtis Lindqvist** – Representative from ICANN

– **Ekitela Lokaale** – Co-facilitator for WSIS Plus 20 process, Permanent Representative of Kenya to the UN

– **Li Junhua** – Under-Secretary General for Economic and Social Affairs, UN

– **Jimson Olufuye** – Principal Consultant at Contemporary Consulting Limited (Nigeria), advocate for private sector view from Africa through Africa ICT Alliance

– **Markus Kummer** – WSIS veteran, former chair of various negotiating groups

– **Suela Janina** – Co-facilitator for WSIS Plus 20 process, Permanent Representative of Albania to the UN

– **Maggie Jones** – Baroness Jones, UK Government representative

– **Fabrizia Benini** – European Commission representative

– **Audience** – Various audience members who asked questions

– **Online moderator** – Eleonora, managing online participation and questions

**Additional speakers:**

– **Jaqueline Pigato** – Data Privacy Brazil, Civil Society

– **Philip Lee** – General Secretary of WACC (World Association for Christian Communication)

– **Nigel Casimir** – Caribbean Telecommunications Union

– **Constantinos Comaitis** – Resident Senior Fellow, Democracy and Tech Initiative at the Atlantic Council

– **Bertrand de La Chapelle** – Executive Director of the Internet and Jurisdiction Policy Network

– **Ana Neves** – Portugal representative

– **Esther Yarmitsky** – UK Government

– **Christina Alida** – Egyptian Government

– **Rian Duarte** – Brazilian Association of Internet Service Providers

– **William Lee** – Australian Government

– **Silvia Cadena** – Chief Development Officer of the World Wide Web Consortium

– **Kossay Al-Shati** – Kuwait representative

– **Raul Echeverria** – Executive Director of Latin American Internet Association, MAG member

– **Bastiaan Winkel** – Department of Justice, Netherlands

– **Eric** – Speaker who addressed linguistic diversity issues (spoke in Spanish)

– **Musa Maigari** – Nigeria (participated online)

– **Segun Omolosho** – Online participant

– **Mark Carvell** – Formerly of UK government, longtime IGF participant (mentioned in online chat)

# WSIS Plus 20 Review and Internet Governance Forum Discussion Report

## Executive Summary

This session at the 20th Internet Governance Forum (IGF) in Oslo focused on the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) Plus 20 review process and the future of digital governance. The discussion brought together co-facilitators from Kenya and Albania leading the WSIS Plus 20 process, UN officials, government ministers, and representatives from civil society, private sector, and technical communities.

**Note on Source Material**: This summary is based on a transcript with significant quality issues, including garbled and incomplete sections. The analysis focuses on clearly intelligible portions while acknowledging these limitations.

## Key Participants and Context

The session featured:

– Ekitela Lokaale (Kenya) and Suela Janina (Albania) as WSIS Plus 20 co-facilitators

– Li Junhua, UN Under-Secretary General for Economic and Social Affairs

– Minister Karianne Tung from Norway

– Maggie Jones representing the UK Government

– Representatives from ICANN, private sector, and civil society organizations

The discussion centered on how the WSIS framework should evolve for future decades while maintaining its foundational principles.

## WSIS Plus 20 Review Process

### Timeline and Consultation Process

Li Junhua outlined the review timeline leading to a high-level UN General Assembly meeting in December. The co-facilitators reported conducting extensive consultations with diverse stakeholders across regions, revealing both areas of agreement and divergence on key issues.

Key upcoming milestones include:

– Written inputs to elements paper due July 15th

– Joint sessions between governments and non-government stakeholders planned for late July

– Second preparatory consultation meeting scheduled for mid-October

### Stakeholder Engagement Mechanisms

The co-facilitators announced the establishment of an informal multi-stakeholder sounding board to facilitate better communication between formal intergovernmental negotiations and the broader multi-stakeholder community.

## Areas of General Agreement

### Multi-stakeholder Approach

Strong support emerged for preserving the multi-stakeholder approach as central to both WSIS and IGF processes. Maggie Jones emphasized that “WSIS, our multi-stakeholder engagement, is very unique in this experience. And I think that’s one of our great strengths.”

Kurtis Lindqvist from ICANN highlighted that “the IGF strength lies in what it enables, the open engagement across stakeholder groups without the pressure to negotiate or formalise the outcomes.”

### Technology-Neutral Framework

Participants generally supported maintaining the technology-neutral nature of existing WSIS action lines. Minister Tung noted that “the action lines are broad, they are tech neutral, I believe that is important, because we don’t know what kind of technology that hits us tomorrow.”

Jimson Olufuye, representing private sector perspectives from Africa, argued that “the 11 WSIS Action Lines covered anything that could come up. We don’t really need any new structural changes.”

## IGF Future and Strengthening

### Permanent Mandate Support

Strong support emerged for providing the IGF with a permanent mandate. Minister Tung stated that “for Norway, it is important that we are able to give IGF a permanent mandate. That is a key priority.”

Kurtis Lindqvist emphasized the IGF’s track record: “IGF has proven successful over 20 years, enabling phenomenal economic growth and connecting over 5 billion people online.”

### Enhanced Outputs and Communication

While supporting the IGF’s non-binding nature, speakers advocated for strengthening its outputs. Maggie Jones suggested that “we can have a strengthened output, we can also potentially use the IGF mandate to report to the General Assembly, but there should be more output coming out of the IGF.”

Minister Tung emphasized better integration with policymaking: “I think it’s important that we are able to communicate better the results and the messages that come out from IGF, so that we can better use it for policymaking.”

## Key Challenges and Debates

### WSIS and Global Digital Compact Relationship

Significant discussion focused on the relationship between WSIS and the Global Digital Compact (GDC). Minister Tung took a clear position: “I believe that the WSIS should be the lead process for digital cooperation where the GDC can be connected more towards and implemented together with the WSIS process.”

However, views varied on whether WSIS should serve as the overarching framework or whether processes should run in parallel to avoid duplication.

### Digital Divides and Inclusion

Despite progress in global connectivity, substantial challenges remain. Maggie Jones reported that internet access has grown from 17% in 2005 to 67% currently, but significant disparities persist between developed and developing countries.

The gender digital divide received particular attention, with Jones noting that “the gender divide remains a huge challenge for us. Globally there were 244 million more men than women using the internet in 2023.”

### Emerging Technology Challenges

Participants discussed how to address artificial intelligence and other emerging technologies within existing frameworks. Minister Tung highlighted concerns about “AI ethics, data governance, and harmful algorithms affecting children and society.”

There was general agreement that the technology-neutral nature of existing action lines provides flexibility to address new challenges without requiring fundamental structural changes.

## Stakeholder Perspectives and Concerns

### Beyond Traditional Communities

An audience member challenged the community to expand beyond traditional boundaries: “How can we preach to those who are already converts? We have to bring them to the table. We have to take all of this out of the IGF to other places.”

### National-Level Implementation

Jimson Olufuye identified challenges in national-level engagement: “The major challenge I see is to get our national government to be involved, to involve all of us, all the stakeholders in the conversation.”

### Protecting Successful Models

Kurtis Lindqvist warned about risks to existing approaches: “We risk losing one of these few global spaces where we can have this meaningful digital cooperation… If we replace this model with something that’s more rigid or politicised, we risk losing one of these few global spaces.”

## Coordination and Implementation

### Avoiding Duplication

A central theme was avoiding duplication while promoting synergies between WSIS, the Global Digital Compact, and the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals. Participants consistently called for better coordination mechanisms.

Fabrizia Benini from the European Commission proposed joint implementation roadmaps to track progress across multiple commitments and identify areas requiring coordination.

### National and Regional IGFs

The discussion highlighted the crucial role of national and regional IGFs in connecting global and local governance conversations, with 176 such initiatives currently operating worldwide.

## Unresolved Questions

Several fundamental questions remain for the WSIS Plus 20 process:

1. **Institutional Relationships**: The specific relationship between WSIS and the Global Digital Compact requires clarification

2. **IGF Structure**: While there’s support for strengthening the IGF, the specific mechanisms remain to be determined

3. **Funding and Resources**: Sustainable funding mechanisms for ongoing activities need development

4. **Meaningful Inclusion**: Practical mechanisms for ensuring broader participation require further work

## Conclusion

The discussion revealed a community committed to preserving successful multi-stakeholder approaches while adapting to contemporary challenges. Strong consensus exists on fundamental principles, but significant work remains on implementation details and institutional arrangements.

The December timeline for the WSIS Plus 20 review is ambitious, requiring resolution of several complex questions about coordination, resources, and institutional relationships. The constructive tone of discussions suggests good prospects for progress, though the ultimate success will depend on translating broad agreement on principles into specific, actionable frameworks.

The emphasis on expanding engagement beyond traditional communities and addressing persistent digital divides indicates recognition that the legitimacy and effectiveness of digital governance frameworks depend on their broader relevance and inclusivity.

Thomas Schneider: Good morning everyone, can you already hear me? So, we have all survived the first few days of the IGF, so there’s one more to go, so welcome to the last morning of this year’s IGF, of the 20th IGF, and what a surprise, we may talk about WSIS Plus 20. So, let me introduce our distinguished guests. We have Ms. Ekitela Lokaale, one of the two co-facilitators for the WSIS Plus 20 process in New York, permanent representative of Kenya to the UN. We have Ms. Suella Janina, the second co-facilitator of the WSIS Plus 20 process, she’s the permanent representative of Albania to the UN, and then we have Mr. Li Junhua, Under-Secretary General for Economic and Social Affairs. Give them a warm welcome, thank you very much. Music Thank you, it’s really good to see you. That’s it. So yeah. As I said before, we had lots of good and inspiring discussions on the WSIS plus 20 process, given that this is the 20th IGF and a lot has happened in the last 20 years, and there’s lots of ideas around what should be the outcome of the WSIS plus 20 process that is happening in New York. And of course, we are very happy to have the co-facilitators that have a key role in this process with us. And they had to listen to many people or had the chance, the opportunity to listen to many people, and I guess they heard quite a diversity and a range of expectations and views from all of you. And of course, also Under-Secretary General Yun Hwa Lee has had many discussions, has been listening, and the purpose of this session is to hear from them what they heard, how they see things, what are their takeaways, and then of course, how are the next months going to work. So, let me turn to Mr. Li Junhua, Under-Secretary General of Economic and Social Affairs. As the Secretariat of the WSIS plus 20 process, of course, you have a key role for the overall review by the UN General Assembly. Can you give us a brief background and update where we are with the process?

Li Junhua: Well, thank you. Thank you, Tom. Good morning, everyone. First of all, let me express my sincere thanks to the co-facilitators, Ambassadors of Albania and Kenya, for their amplifying leadership for this WSIS plus 20 process. As you said, the WSIS actually started very early, more than two decades. It started from Geneva in 2003 and followed by Tunis in 2005, which actually laid a very solid foundation for WSIS. Namely, first, it’s people-centered. Second, it’s development-driven. Third, it’s an inclusive process. And the WSIS also created a very large number of people. technology, and we need to make sure that we are not neglecting the long-lasting mechanism that is our IGF. So, over the past two decades, we all witnessed the profound changes have taken place, while we made enormous progress, but having said that, we also need to acknowledge persistent digital device, rapid connectivity, and also, about the safety, internet safety and security, make a renewable dialogue, conversation essential for all of us. So, this conversation, to me, to the UNDESA, I guess, to all stakeholders, make this WSIS plus 20 overall review very significant. This process would end up with a high-level meeting of the United Nations General Assembly in December, and, as a secretariat for this process, my department, the UNDESA, is very committed to supporting the whole process guided by the co-facilitators. I just want to highlight a few key mind-storms so far. First, as a first preparatory meeting and stock-taking session was conducted on May 30th at the UN headquarters. Second, a series of stakeholder consultations, including virtual meetings, were held from 9th to 10th of June, and very remarkable and pivotal development took place on 20th of June, with the publication of the WSIS plus 20 elements paper circulated by the co-facilitators. This document actually invites the written inputs from all stakeholders. by the deadline of July 15, so that I understand that the co-facilitators also concluded a very significant consultation during the UNESCO AI and Digital Conference, and then co-facilitators will continue to engage with the multi-stakeholders in coming weeks in Geneva at the Western Forum hosted by the ITU. So to ensure this process, very much genuine multi-stakeholder co-facilitators announced that we are going to launch the informal multi-stakeholder sounding board. For this board, only members from MACS and the leadership panel, those individuals with no affiliation to the government or inter-governmental organizations are eligible, so they would reflect the voices, diverse voices from tech communities, from youth, and from civil societies. So all in all, all those updates, documents, and opportunities, you can check on the website launched by my department recently. Thank you.

Thomas Schneider: Thank you very much, and so we see inclusivity something that is taken very seriously in this process, and I also thank you personally for being very committed to this principle. So now turning to our co-facilitators, what are the proposals and reflections that you’ve heard here in this week in Oslo in the many sessions, many discussions, and many bilateral discussions that you’ve had with member states and with other stakeholders? Mr. Ambassador.

Ekitela Lokaale: Thank you, Ambassador. Let me also join Under-Secretary General in and also the questions available for the participants for winning elections. There are several leaders to intervene on this field . We could address them and take a solution , and for the participants of these issues, within the hierarchy from the CFP d . The focus on the IGF for individual and collective U.N. agencies, other stakeholders, civil society, academia, technical community, as well as the private sector. In all those conversations, we have received very, very rich and thoughtful ideas about how we should conduct this process. We have had very, very useful and insightful proposals on the things that we need to take into account. We have been working on a number of issues in the IGF. We have been working on a number of issues in the IGF. We have received very, very useful and insightful interventions on a number of issues by other parts of Brazil. We have received up to attention from partners and countries throughout last several years. We worked very, very closely with the workforce and tap re model And so within that framework, there are n y initiatives in the IGF. But the Championships in the IGF are based on the vision and willingness to make their views known. So in terms of some of the concrete proposals which are coming up, we are hearing from the stakeholders, for example, the need for us to ground the WSIS Plus 20 outcome review in the original WSIS vision, that is the Geneva Declaration Tunis Agenda and commitment. So I think that’s what we are doing in the IGF. So I think that’s what we are doing in the IGF. So I think once the Islam … which has witnessed scientific study, these different types of projects to do. So a broad range of stakeholders agrees upon the vision of a people centered inclusive and development oriented information of course and civic development and the other is that there is a clear recognition that even as we ground the review in the original WSIS vision and the Geneva and Tunis agenda or commitments, we should also reflect some of the technological advancements that have happened over the last two decades. For example, the advancements in the digital economy have happened over the last two decades. For example, the advancements in the area of artificial intelligence, digital public infrastructure, there are advancements but also risks and threats to cyber security and so on. So that’s the second thing that we’re hearing. Then the other big one is the relationship between WSIS and the global digital compact. And on this one, I must say that there have been a diversity of views. What’s clear to a lot of people is that we should not duplicate what is in WSIS with what is in the GDC or even the other related processes. But the views are diverse. On the one hand, for example, there are those who feel that WSIS should remain the overarching framework and that all the other proposals in the GDC be implemented under the WSIS architecture. That’s one. Then there are also those who say, let the two processes don’t duplicate but follow what is in WSIS and let the processes under GDC run their course. So I think for my co-facilitator and I, as we continue engaging, that’s one area on which. augmentation process. And I think to graduated families and they’ll be Epstein and Moneywell and then that’s also because those families in line in collaboration with the foundation writes might also sign another contract or another contract. But they’ll keep dividing up the money, and dividing up the funds, the options, the funds for dissemination. Then we’ll obviously open up this conversation further when there are those who advance this proposal, they are wide enough. They can accommodate, you know, these emerging technologies. So there is no need to touch them. There is a school of thought that says let’s update the WSIS action lines. So by updating of necessity, it means you have to touch them somewhat. Then there are those who say expand the WSIS action lines. And there will be project areas that will be within those actions. And let’s see if there are any policies that will allow for the partnership to continue. So that is pretty much the information I would like to provide. So at this point I would like to say thank you very much. And thank you to Girona and to Alliana for putting together a wonderful panel and also my colleagues. We’ll continue our time today as well. Thank you.

Thomas Schneider: Thank you very much.

Suela Janina: Thank you. Thank you, Thomas. Good morning, distinguished participants, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you, Ambassador Locale, for capturing almost the discussions that we have heard during this week. But I wanted just to emphasize the importance of our participation here. In fact, while we have organized a roadmap for our process, it has been one of the most important stops and it proves to be very worthy, because during this week we have heard very rich discussions and enlightening also for us. It’s really a learning process for us to understand the spirit of WSIS and IGF that my colleague mentioned, and it has been also an inspirational week for us to keep this spirit alive, but also to try to be forward-looking for the future. Some of the elements that maybe I can add in terms of complementing what my colleague already mentioned, when we speak about the process, is the request that we have heard very openly, that the process is inclusive and is our commitment to have this process, WSIS review, inclusive and forward-looking at the same time. As mentioned by USG, there has been proposals in creating this new form of communications with stakeholder community, which one of we are just practicing, or just it’s in a good way of being created, like the informal multi-stakeholder sounding board. We have had the request for volunteers coming from the MAG and leadership panel, and I will take this opportunity to thank all of them that have been volunteered to be part of the sounding board. Very soon we’ll need to make a selection based also on a big number of requests, but also on some criteria that we would like to see on the sounding board, like the regional geographical presentation, but also gender presentation. So very soon you will learn who will be the ones that will be your voice in in communicating with us. But I just want to make this very clear from the beginning that the sounding board will be a practical way of lasening with us, of communicating with us, but it’s not closing the doors of communication because we’ll be very much committed to hear from every one of you. So please, let’s use these opportunities like a kind of coordination way that in a more practical and efficient way, we can hear each other and we can represent your views in the process that is going to take place during the next weeks and months to come. One other important element that we have noticed and have been repeatedly mentioned to us is the fact of, as we are at the IGF, the future of IGF, what format and what kind of IGF you would like to see for the next 10, 20 years or the more extended future. And here we are really very much appreciating the fact that there are a lot of ideas coming of how IGF and WSIS in general will fit in the global digital governance. And we have heard around the fact of making extensions to the mandate of IGF up to making it permanent. We have also heard views of rebranding the name of IGF. We have also heard views about how to strengthen the IGF in terms of including also new and emerging technologies. So these are very important and very useful ideas. Of course, we’ll be in the position to hear this discussion more in detail during the coming. But we have had a clear opinion where the proposals stand and we’ll be very happy to hear in the future, again for you in more detail or in concrete language, really what kind of IGF and what is the future of IGF that will fit for purpose and for the future of digital society we want. Another additional element that I would like also to emphasize at this point is the fact that we have been also asked to put our attention to capture and to reflect the diverse experiences that are coming from different stakeholders and regions and sectors at the same time. Because this can encompass different elements starting from connectivity, access, capacity building and this is also with particular relevance to include or to make possible that developing countries have a say in this process and this say should be meaningful. Because what we are seeing also with emerging technologies is that we risk to deepen the digital divide that we are seeing nowadays. So more or less at this stage I would like just to have these points also as future way of having some other additional food for thought from your side and from the wider multi-stakeholder inputs like starting it from the governments but also from private sector, technical community, academia, civil society. All valuable inputs that will come will seriously be taken into account and we really are very grateful for this rich and very colorful proposals that we are taking during this week. week. Thank you very much.

Thomas Schneider: So it’s also good to see that both of you have felt this vibrant spirit, this passion, no matter whom you talk to, no matter from what stakeholder, what stakeholder a person is part of or what the region of the world, everybody is really engaged and passionate. And I think it is also something that we realized during the discussions. WSIS is not an institution or is less an institution. There’s no house or organization. It’s more of a mindset of cooperation that has different houses within it, around it. The IGF is one of the parts, together with the WSIS Forum, that we will continue the discussion in one week in Geneva are some of the key platforms for dialogue, for listening to each other, for having engaged debates. And so I think it is beautiful to see how you captured the spirit of this and also how you outlined some of the hot issues that many discussions will need to be taking place in the coming months to hopefully come up with something that actually is acceptable to all and meets all expectations. I’d like to maybe also focus a little bit on what were the elements where you felt clear convergence? What are the areas of convergence? Where do people agree that this should be done and this should be done? This is important or is key. So, what were your takeaways in terms of where does the community agree?

Suela Janina: Thank you. Thank you, Thomas, for this question and also for highlighting a little bit earlier the kind of. kind of alliances that we are in together. And when we started this undertaking, what I was capturing like very inspiring is the fact that the community is strong and I’ve been presented with WSIS community, but I should also put it like, I feel like this is WSIS family. And we’re really very glad to be part of it. And sometimes where you are within family, you try to understand the best part of it, but also to speak very honestly with each other. And sometimes we have filled this kind of burden and responsibility because the process we need to admit is challenging, is not among the most easiest process. Also having in mind that we are also working all together in challenging multilateral environment now. But we have been really very surprised that there are many points on which the community converges. And first of all, when we talk about principle, it is important that everyone is very cautious and awareness is there that we need to preserve the foundation and fundamental vision of WSIS that we just delivered 20 years ago. And what USG mentioned is the vision of a people-centered, inclusive and development-oriented information society, while at the same time addressing the new challenging elements of development of this society. So when we talk about this new and emerging technologies, we are listening repeatedly and from everyone that new emerging technologies like AI, data governance, can be fitted within. the WSIS framework, so this is a good start, let’s say, for taking over the next steps and the next discussion. A second point of convergence is the need for capacity building. We are hearing that very often, and this also is linked with what I mentioned before, the fact of digital divide, which we see actually in infrastructure, in skills, in governance, so all these elements need to be very clearly in our focus in order that we commit for concrete actions in order to address the digital divide. And something that I know is very sensible, but I think we need to make a clarification here because during this week we have this sensibility on the multi-stakeholder approach, and I would like to reassure everyone that this is very central in our work, in our discussions. There is no kind of afterthought or beforethought from us as co-facilitators to walk back from the multi-stakeholder approach that has characterized WSIS, not only WSIS as a process, but has given the positive examples to other processes within UN. So multi-stakeholder approach and engagement will be central in the future negotiations that we are taking for the review of the process, and here again another call, let’s be engaged all together to preserve what we have achieved and to be ambitious for the future.

Thomas Schneider: Thank you very much Suela, where did you feel convergence and agreement this week?

Ekitela Lokaale: In addition to everything that my colleague has said, we see a desire on the part of everyone we spoke to that we should try to achieve coherence. Coherence between, you know, we see coherence with what is in the GDC. We hear over and over people saying, please don’t duplicate. Try to find synergies between the two processes. So that has been a constant message that has come through across the board. The second is, stakeholders are saying, don’t reopen debates that we’ve had from 20 years ago. Don’t go back 10 years ago. The issues which as a stakeholder community, we’ve discussed, we’ve agreed. So don’t reopen those debates. There are those that we’ve discussed, but inconclusively, and have agreed to pack them. So that has come out quite strongly, and we’ve taken that point. The other is, we hear people saying, there are issues on which there are parallel processes happening right now. You know, just to give some examples, the AI, for instance. Enhanced cooperation is the other one. Data governance and cyber security. So we hear those examples where people are saying, there are processes that are underway. So let’s not duplicate that by bringing those again. Okay. Very good point. So, another way ofinterpreting things, how we do this is, we use fake data based report. In fact, that is our one reason why we ask the questions as to have any information can be used, not to instantiate issues. So what does it suggest us to do? Is it still possible that the user can act on public information, or the user can act as an actor?

Thomas Schneider: One of the things I suggest the convergence, which is good, but there is also some work to be done on the issues that will be probably in the centre of the discussions. I’m also keen, and you’ve explained it already on some occasions, but it would be good to hear from you once more. What are the next steps in the WSIS plus 20 process, and how can this multi-stakeholder dialogue most effectively contribute to a strong and inclusive outcome of the WSIS plus 20 process in New York?

Li Junhua: Thank you, Thomas. I want to know what your thoughts are on this end. The conversation we have just now So, we are entering into the second phase of this review. It is the very moment to redefine what will be the WSIS plus 20 and the future IGF. A number of the issues have been flagged out among all the stakeholders from its mandate updating structure or framework, and also coherence, non-duplication among the various processes. So, all in all, I think that in the coming month, definitely, the first thing we need to think about is how we could respond and reply to the elements paper prepared and circulated by the co-facilitators. Why is that so important? Because this element paper would serve as a basis to inform the co-facilitators to draft the zero outcome document, which is the basis for the future negotiation among the member states in Geneva and also in New York in coming October, November, and December. So, that is why, when we have the different perspectives, the different divergent voices from tech communities, from the civil society, from the youth, from the businesses, and also from parliament and judicial system, all those elements, all those perspectives need to be mutually accommodated and reflected in the final product. So, that is why we believe that the second phase would be critically important to lay the foundation for the final outcome. Thank you.

Thomas Schneider: Thank you very much. So we do have a little bit of time also to hear, to try and be inclusive. There are two microphones in the room. They are lit now. So whoever wants to react is happily invited. If you have final messages or questions, not final, but things that you would like to highlight, please take the mic and introduce yourself. Thank you. Can I go ahead? Go ahead, yes.

Audience: Thank you. Hi, good morning. My name is Jaqueline Pigato. I’m with Data Privacy Brazil, Civil Society. I would like to emphasize that although you assure us the stakeholder approaches in the negotiation process, it is important to maintain and strengthen this mechanism also in the implementation of the WSIS, as in the cooperation processes between international organizations and states. This must involve all stakeholders. There are already multistakeholder agreed guidelines in NetMundial Plus 10 for this purpose, so it is important that they are mentioned in the outcome paper and effectively reflected in the implementation of both WSIS and the GDC. Regardless of the decisions made regarding this integration, I’m certain that at the next IGF we’ll be discussing both processes, what needs to be done, what has worked. So that’s it. Thank you.

Thomas Schneider: Thank you very much. Any reactions?

Suela Janina: Yes, thank you. It was not very easy to capture everything, but I understood that the idea is on emphasizing the multistakeholder approach. And I mentioned in our opening remarks that this is central. And just let me clarify something. What are the first steps of the process? The first step is to have a discussion regarding the elements paper. For us, elements paper has been a starting point for triggering a discussion and for a call for input, a food for thought. You may call it different names, but it’s important that we started a process on which we have envisaged the main element of the discussion, which is the food for thought. Now, the most important process that we have had is to present all these elements that we are getting from the discussions from here, and we continue the discussion in Geneva a few days after. So everything will be represented in the outcome document. The outcome document will be presented in the mid-August. And, of course, we will have a discussion by the undersecretary-general in the mid-August, we intend to present this first zero draft of the outcome paper, and everything that you are mentioning here will be clearly reflected there as a way of, of course, of compromise, but multistakeholder approach is something that I don’t think we need to put into doubt anymore. So, I think that’s all I have to say. I’m not going to mention all categories of the community that represent the multistakeholder approach. So this has been taken note and will be duly reflected.

Thomas Schneider: Thank you very much. And I think the WSIS plus 20 high-level event and also the AI for Good that are happening jointly in Geneva in one week’s time will be very, very important for the WSIS plus 20 high-level event. And implementing this, you will see lots of stakeholders cooperating. This is the dialogue, where you have a multistakeholder dialogue. see what UNESCO is doing, what ITU is doing, what all the other UN agencies is doing. I’ve been in this for more than 20 years actually, since 2003. The UN agencies and the UN system has opened up, has opened up its arms for cooperation quite significantly over this time and I think, yeah, nobody questions this importance. So the gentleman over there, please, and try to speak clearly to the mic because it’s not that easily hearable. Thank you very much.

Audience: Thank you. Philip Lee, I’m General Secretary of WACC, which is an international NGO that focuses on communication rights. Summit of the Future, Digital Compact, IGF, WSIS. Can we hear a little bit more about how that will all come together in a series of meaningful actions going forward? Because it seems to some of us that there are disparate parts of it, lots of different elements, it’s immensely complicated. But looking ahead, how does that come together? Thank you.

Thomas Schneider: Thank you. An easy question.

Ekitela Lokaale: Well, not so easy. I alluded to that in my comments, that indeed there is an appreciation that all these processes are related. The issues, you know, that are addressed in the Pact for the Future, Global Digital Compact, the issues that we’ve been discussing, for example, here all week at the IGF and the WSIS are related issues. What has come out, like I said, is a desire for us to pull all these issues together so that they can be addressed, if not in a single platform, but at least in a way that they speak. countries where the technology works. So, if you look to California, it’s a necessary and desirable part of our humanitarian program. And to change it, the only political party in the world to vote against the transatlantic project, having said yes, disclosures and that work to make sure that all the human gains revolution get made in the world with the support of elections. Any time that administration makes a proposal, we have to make sure that it is implemented in a way that is in line with the principles of the GDC and WSIS. There are proposals which we are beginning to hear. For example, there is a proposal that we have a joint implementation plan for the GDC and WSIS, for example. So, that’s an innovative idea which we are willing to put before stakeholders for the GDC and WSIS, and we are ready to implement it in a way that is in line with the principles of the GDC and WSIS. So, it’s not only about bringing them together, but at least some level of coherence.

Thomas Schneider: Thank you very much. I think it’s a legitimate request in a world that gets more and more complex, with more and more interdependencies to the way in which we are doing things, and I think it’s a good idea to focus on action, not only on what the solution is, but also to focus on action. But also there, I think it’s unavoidable given that digital has an impact on lives that you will have a distributed system with thousands of actors in the end involved in actions on global regional and national levels and you can’t put them all you can’t even put them all in one in one room because there’s so many actors but of course the system is trying to somehow help each other all the elements to understand their space in in the whole system and I think the discussion on a joint implementation plan is definitely something that I think is it’s a very useful one because that could help to somehow help us all to gain some some coherent over oversight view thank you very much. Please.

Audience: Thank you good morning I’m Nigel Casimir from the Caribbean Telecommunications Union and an intergovernmental organization can I get some clarity on the multi-stakeholder sounding board is it something that one has or had to apply to join or is it a like an online space that is being opened for stakeholder comments or whatever I’m not quite clear on how it works or it might be intended to work.Thank you

Thomas Schneider: Thank you Nigel.

Suela Janina: Thank you for the question the sounding board has been a proposal coming from some member states but also from stakeholders so we decided to accept this proposal and to make it known to mug and the leadership panel and we invited for volunteers to come from these two organs in order to fill in the places that we consider should be a contained number like we propose ten members from the sounding board indeed there has been a deadline which has been on Wednesday of this week but still we are flexible, if there is interest. But I need to inform you that the number of volunteers has already surpassed the number of places, so at this point we need to make a selection, and the selection would be made fairly on the basis of representation. We would like also to see different regions represented on the sounding board, and also we would like to see women represented on the sounding board. So I would encourage you, if there is interest, please present your requests, and then very soon we will make it known who will be the members that will be part of the sounding board. But again, I would like to emphasize the fact that by creating the sounding board, there was not closing the door to anyone of you who would like to approach us to make any proposal or contribution. Indeed, also for the Elements paper, there is a deadline of 15th of July to present written inputs, but we are really very flexible. Our aim is to get a broad spectrum of inputs and ideas and comments and advices, so you are very kindly invited to do so in all ways that pertain more practical and more efficient to you.

Li Junhua: Just a supplementary remark to the Ambassador. For this sounding board, it’s a newly launched mechanism. Of course, it should be balanced to provide professional advices to the co-facilitators with a balanced composition, but more importantly, as far as I can see, all the stakeholders, if you have a very specific… proposal, perspectives, even concerns about all the multi-linked sectors, then please come up with your written response to the elements paper. So in that sense, it can be more adequately reflected in the zero draft.

Thomas Schneider: I think it’s important to note that this is just one additional informal channel that has been proposed and requested, and thanks for accepting this. It will not replace any of the other channels. And as the Under-Secretary General has said, of course, written responses help, and yeah, I think it’s just one more way. So please go ahead.

Audience: Hi, good morning. My name is Constantinos Comaitis, and I am a resident senior fellow with the Democracy and Tech Initiative at the Atlantic Council. I would really like to express my and our appreciation to both of you ambassadors for being here and listening in and taking notes. I had the honor of really chairing and moderating the session, and the queues, as you have seen, were quite long. I think the big challenge now is how you take on all these comments and incorporate them into the WSIS process. And I would like really to encourage you, as you mentioned in our session, to hold a joint session between governments and non-government stakeholders so we can exchange the views in a more constructive and direct manner. Thank you so very much for being here.

Thomas Schneider: Thank you, Constantinos.

Ekitela Lokaale: Thank you. I think the suggestion to hold a joint… So, we are looking at the possibility of end of July to be able to organize that. But this will be done in consultation. Of course, we’ll get the advice from the Secretariat. But we are looking at the possibility of end of July to be able to organize that. But this will be done in consultation. Of course, we’ll get the advice from the Secretariat. And it’s good that the Under Secretary General is here on the possibility of hosting that. But we think it’s one of those things that will give true meaning to multi-stakeholder engagement in this process. So, we will try to pursue it and hope that it works. Because it will be a very, very useful step. Thank you.

Thomas Schneider: Thank you very much.

Li Junhua: The second preparatory consultation or preparatory meeting is tentatively scheduled in mid-October. So, including multi-stakeholder consultations.

Thomas Schneider: Thank you for this information. So, note this down in your calendars. There’s going to be something in mid-October. Please, Bertrand.

Audience: Good morning. My name is Bertrand de La Chapelle. I’m the Executive Director of the Internet and Jurisdiction Policy Network. Quickly, I cannot support more what Konstantinos was saying. It is absolutely essential for this process that governments and the other stakeholders have the capacity to be in the same room and hear each other. And if you can make that happen, it will be a real progress. Quickly, this meeting in Norway, and I’ve participated in the IGF basically since the first one in 2006, is clearly highlighting an awareness that is growing on what is being said about the Internet. role of the IGF in the governance process, which is to do the agenda setting and the issue framing. I had the comment yesterday in a session with the leadership panel that in a certain way the IGF is a sandbox process for the multilateral environment. It is a way to alleviate some of the constraints regarding the participation of non-governmental stakeholders, it’s a way to experiment and also to alleviate the constraints for putting something on the agenda. You all know how difficult it is sometimes to put a new topic on the agenda of a multilateral process because you need the agreement of all actors. The IGF is this exploratory space that allows to put agenda items early on and save at least three or four years in addressing them. The second thing is Ambassador Janina was kind enough to list three elements regarding the future of the IGF, the extension of the mandate, the renaming and the strengthening. I would like to suggest that in the strengthening there are two aspects. One is the revision and evolution of the mandate in light of the new topics that have happened and the clarification of the role of the IGF. And the second element is, and I would pick the expression that was used by Maria Fernanda Garza, who was a member of the leadership panel, which is the organizational evolution of the IGF, how to make sure that from the building blocks that we already have we build an institution that is functioning even better than it is functioning today because it has an enormous potential. And the last point is, in order to do so, those two points will not be addressed before December in depth. and there will be no agreement there. I strongly believe that we should take inspiration from the Working Group on Internet Governance procedure that was adopted during the WSIS that led to the creation of the IGF, and that in some shape or form, we would have in 2026, a truly multi-stakeholder group that would address those two issues and make proposals for the next stage of the IGF, a sort of constitutional moment, if you want. Thank you.

Thomas Schneider: Should we take, we have four people, should we take maybe another intervention and then, yes, please, Markus.

Markus Kummer: I’m Markus Kummer, I’m a WSIS veteran. I chaired various negotiating groups in Geneva in 2003 in the final phase of the summit, and then at the request of member states, I had to send out non-governmental stakeholders from the room. We have come a long way since, and I would like to thank the co-facilitators for their commitment to a multi-stakeholder approach. Thank you. No, hang on, the point I was going to make was, and I had the pleasure of making it when we had a bilateral with the dynamic coalitions and the both co-facilitators, express my hope that zero draft will affect the fact that the IGF is more than just an annual meeting. It’s a process with many intersessional activities and the importance of the NRIs could not be overemphasized. Also, the dynamic coalitions make tangible contributions to the IGF. Thank you.

Thomas Schneider: Thank you to both of you also for highlighting that it’s not just a one-off event. The policy networks, dynamic coalitions, and so on and so forth, that have been not asked for in a UN resolution, they just have emerged. because people wanted to continue the discussion and they wanted to turn the discussion into action, so people have started to organize themselves. And what Petra said was also very important, so let me give you a quick answer.

Audience: Indeed, these are not points of questions or discussions. These are really points that we need to take note and to reflect because I think in most of them we all agree. So, if I turn to the points that Bernard already mentioned, like the role of IGF, it’s already there. Everyone accepts this, that IGF has proven itself to be a very valuable and institutable instrument on digital governance. When it comes to models you are advising, like the Working Group of Internet will look on this practice. And when it comes to the importance of all these messages you are giving, because this comes from your own practice, and I like this word of IGF, which is veterans. We really need to be based on what we have achieved until now, and the know-how and the experience you have is really very valuable on that. The role of national institutions, that’s all that we are hearing and we are taking note of that, are really invaluable inputs for us. There is no need to discuss, I think, Thomas, on that. We take note and you will see them reflected in the future documents that we are going to produce.

Thomas Schneider: Thank you very much. So, let’s take the final three requests. Anna, please.

Audience: Thank you. I’m Ana Neves from Portugal, and I would like to emphasize four points. My first one is about the national and regional initiatives. They are very important. We have 167, I think, national and regional initiatives, but the governments normally are not part of these national and regional initiatives, and so I really hope that all this process will give more strength and will maybe institutionalize these NRIs. Second, there is a statement, which is the multi-stakeholder São Paulo guidelines. These São Paulo multi-stakeholder guidelines are very interesting because they propose steps to make the multilateral process more interesting if you use the São Paulo guidelines. So they are steps, they are clearly demonstrating how to make the multilateral process more multi-stakeholder. So I think that to raise the flag about the importance of this document. My number three is about a clear mandate on who is doing what. So nowadays we have in the UN family a lot of duplications, so I hope that from all this exercise that will end in December, we will have a clear picture on who is doing what. And finally, I would like to be very… ambitious and to ask for the future of the IGF to get the relevance and impact of the World Economic Forum, for instance. So this should be, I think, our ambition, and to make a really forum where the heads of state, ministers, and all the other key stakeholders will be engaged. Thank you.

Thomas Schneider: Thank you. We’ll go immediately to the other side. Thank you.

Audience: Thank you so much, Esther Yarmitsky, UK Government. Thank you so much to the COFAX for being here. We really appreciate your time. We wanted to highlight that the UK Government is actively engaging in lots of regional and national IGFs. For example, our team attended the Africa IGF this year, as well as EuroDIG, which was hosted at the Council of Europe this year, and similarly to what our colleague Anna mentioned, we think that the role that regional and local IGFs play in the system of Internet governance and WSIS needs to really be discussed, because it is really important. There are actually 176 IGFs at the moment. They are national, they are regional, there are youth IGFs, and the value we see in them is that they bring together stakeholders at the national, at the local, at regional levels. This is a platform that is very unique, because it provides the voices to be heard. So we really would like to see stronger links between local and regional IGFs, as well as the annual IGF, where we are today, and we hope that we can use this WSIS Review to really strengthen their role. Thank you.

Thomas Schneider: Thank you very much.

Audience: Yes, good morning. My name is Christina Alida. I am with the Egyptian Government. I would like to thank the co-facilitators for being here through the week and listening to the IHF community. I cannot re-emphasize more how it’s important to be sitting in a multi-stakeholder format and listening. I think we’ve come this long way, like Marcus was saying. I’m presuming the sounding board consists of stakeholders that are not government. I think the importance is to have a platform and a way where we’re going to discuss the different versions in a multi-stakeholder format, not only governments alone and the sounding board alone. Having said that, I would appreciate if we can see the consultations that will happen through the coming months take place in days of the week that are not weekends in parts of the world. Those consultations in the past have been on Fridays, Fridays are weekends in the place where I come from, so it would be good to have them at a time where actual stakeholders can participate. Thank you so much for listening.

Thomas Schneider: Thank you very much. Our time is almost up, but of course I want to give you the floor. I think we’ve heard so much, there has been so much talk. What is the key in one sentence or two sentences? What is your key takeaways after also this session, Ekitela?

Ekitela Lokaale: Thank you. Thank you, Thomas. First, let me say how grateful we are to this community here for sharing with us freely your thoughts about how we should conduct the WSIS Plus 20 review. I think it was important that we came here and spent the amount of time that we’ve spent because then it makes the documents that we are going to produce even richer than they are going to be. So, we are grateful for that. Second, is to give you our commitment that we committed to run an open, transparent, inclusive review process. We will endeavor, as we’ve tried to do up to this point, to provide avenues for all of you to, you know, give your inputs into this process. As all of us know, for a complex process of this nature, of course, not everything that we would like to be reflected will be reflected, because there are going to be as many opinions as there are stakeholders, but our job will be to reflect as many of those as possible, those that are shared by stakeholders. Finally, we leave our channels open, you know, we’ve given out our cards, we ran out of them, I think, by day two, but you know how to reach us through the Secretariat, Ambassador Janina and I are available, whenever you have any idea, please let us know, invite us to your platforms, if we’re able to come, we will make a point of coming, if not, we’ll participate remotely, so let’s keep this conversation going. I thank you.

Thomas Schneider: Thank you very much. Suele.

Suela Janina: Thank you, Thomas, and just to join my colleague in expressing the gratitude for the richness and all the elements that you have put forward for our consideration. We are seriously and very much committed to analyze everything and to be very open and transparent in this process. What we’ll take from this week here at the IGF is the commitment to preserve the WSIS spirit and to be ambitious to adapt it to the new digital world. we are living. So my last call would be let’s be actively all engaged, because UISIS belongs to everyone. No one can consider ownership over the process. So by being collectively engaged and in a collegial spirit, we believe that we can conduct successful negotiations and have an outcome process and document that will be fit for the future and the digital world that we would like to together build, not only for this generation, but for the next one as well.

Thomas Schneider: Absolutely. Thank you very much. Undersecretary General, you want to?

Li Junhua: Thank you. Thank you, Thomas. I think we have a very meaningful and rich discussion over the past several days. We actually shared a very common aspirations to have a better delivered versus plus 20 review. So I think the inclusivity actually generated more complementarity through this open and transparent process. So as a secretariat, we are very committed to provide all that we can do to support this process. Thank you.

Thomas Schneider: Thank you very much. So with this, that’s the end of the first half of the session. I’m going to hand over to my co-pilot, Jorge, that you also know. Thank you very much for the attention. Thank you for the interaction. A big thanks to our important guests. And I wish you good luck for the hard but great work that you will be doing in the coming weeks and months. Thank you.

Maggie Jones: Our jobs over the last 20 years and a lot of very practical steps that we’ve taken over that time. So we have the WSIS Action Lines and the WSIS Forum, which has driven progress on sustainable development, the ITU WSIS Stocktake Database, which is very good examples of some of the steps that we have already taken, great WSIS projects. The WSIS process, as has been said, very important as a framework for multi-stakeholder action in a wide range of areas, and particularly the work that we’re doing on connecting the unconnected. Over 17% of people had access to the internet in 2005, and now I’m very pleased to say that that’s 67%. I’m not saying that’s all as a result of WSIS activities, but we’ve certainly played our part in increasing that spread of access. And it’s notable that over the last 20 years, we’ve been able to adapt to new developments because things like the action lines are technology neutral, so it enables us to give a basis for going ahead in the future. So for us, our priorities have been and increasingly are capacity building, cultural diversity, and providing an enduring framework to make sure that we reach out to those who are unable to play their part at the current time. So we need to be flexible to address those new priorities and ensure that WSIS is able to face future challenges, but I would say that we’re in a very good position to do that. The landscape has become increasingly complex, but it’s the very fact that we have a unique, diverse involvement, I think, gives us a huge basis to go forward. Research by the DNS Research Federation in Oxford demonstrated that the impact of the IGF, for example, driving growth on the internet exchange points in Africa, nurturing the next generation of global south leaders and beginning to address online harm. So a huge number of activities. We want to make the case today, and we will be making that case for a more permanent mandate for the IGF. And I hope that we will, in the coming months, be able to win that argument.

Jorge Cancio: Thank you so much, Baroness Jones, for highlighting some of the very tangible impact of this forum. Now we go to Kurtis Lindqvist.

Kurtis Lindqvist: Thank you. This week’s conversations, that has been across sessions on resilience, multilingual access, digital fragmentation, and many, many other topics, have really underscored one thing, and that is that the WSIS framework remains foundational to global digital cooperation. And this framework really created a shared vision for how digital governance should evolve through practical stakeholder-driven cooperation. And this vision is also what gave rise to the IGF and reinforced the value of the multistakeholder model, something that we at ICANN have been applying in practice since our formation, which actually predates the IGF. And we also see this vision echoed through the national regional IGFs, something that I think we should mention a bit more often, which continue to connect the global and local governance conversations into each other, and I think that’s an important part as well. And this model has, in the last two decades, provided phenomenal economic growth, value creation, and really stemmed from the permissionless bottom-up innovation the model has enabled, but also stimulated wider discussions inside WSIS and at the IGFs. And as you just heard today, more than five billion people have come online, and most of this since in the last 20 years. And this didn’t happen through the technical coordination, distributed stewardship and global engagement we have seen. And ICANN, we see this result every day. The services that we coordinate and provide… provide must functions for the internet to generate trust and scale. And for us to be able to do our job and for this to work, we need to have exactly what the WSIS stands for. The open dialogue, operational coordination and cooperation and a commitment to a single interoperable internet.

Jorge Cancio: Thank you so much, Kurtis, also for recalling that every day as we speak, everybody is probably looking into his emails, WhatsApp or Signal or whatever. It’s the underlying infrastructure that is working and which is based on trust and on voluntary cooperation. Thank you so much. Jimson, the floor is yours.

Jimson Olufuye: Thank you very much, George. My name again is Jimson Olufuye. I have my day job as a Principal Consultant at Contemporary Consulting Limited based in Abuja, Nigeria. And as a volunteer, I have the privilege of advocating the private sector view from Africa through the Africa ICT Alliance, an alliance formed in 2012 with six countries in Africa. And now we’re in 43 countries in Africa pushing the message of ICT connectivity between the digital device. Well, as we all know, WSIS is aimed at achieving a people-centred, inclusive and even a highly productive information society where nobody is left behind. And we saw this and that was why AFICTA was formed. So we can say AFICTA is one of the outcomes of WSIS and its vision is to fulfil the promise of the digital age for everyone in Africa. And so the WSIS has provided a solid foundation for multi-stakeholder engagement. where our own voices could be heard, the private sector, and even from developing countries. We also see that through WSIS, as my colleague mentioned, we have the robust idea of where all of us can, on equal footing, make our views known, and we can have constructive dialogue on moving our society forward, to achieving that information society of our collective expectation. Another outcome, of course, is the WSIS Forum. The WSIS Forum has always provided a solid opportunity for us to review the action lines. The action lines are very, very relevant, even to today, and I see them relevant to tomorrow. And through the action lines, we’re able to have further discussion, even at the African level. We have UNECA leading the charge, but the missing link would be that, maybe we need to discuss this at the national level, just as we have the IGF, okay, being discussed at over 170 countries now, doing the IGF. So we also need a WSIS action line, review that as part of our expectation. Another thing you can see coming out from WSIS is the UNGIS, where you have about 20 United Nations organizations coming together, and exchanging best practices, and review things, and shaping policy with regard to digital technology. And there is something that many people don’t mention, but Ambassador Locale mentioned it briefly, and that is enhanced cooperation. Okay, we see the successful IANA transition. We see that all of us, the global community, we are responsible, even for what President Kurtismentioned. We are all responsible, making sure that our internet is trustworthy, and that is a major outcome of WSIS, really, and for us in developing countries. And last… I was at CSTD, and I was really pleased to see that enhanced cooperation at work, where government do their things, coming up with policy, in the presence of even all of us, the stakeholders, the private sector, the civil society, and we’re given privilege to even raise our voices and have free discussion, and also see that the government could vote based on issues, which is enhanced cooperation, basically. So WSIS has really become that real omnibus foundation for the digital society. Thank you very much.

Jorge Cancio: Thank you so much, Jimson, and especially for underscoring how WSIS has brought also this idea of dialogue and togetherness to the national and the regional level. And now to finalize this question, we have Fabrizia Benini.

Fabrizia Benini: Thank you. Good morning, everyone. So the European Commission and its member states is extremely attached to the WSIS process. To do that, and to contribute to the negotiations that will take place, we adopted a common position that was well discussed and endorsed by our Council. And in preparing that, we looked at the contribution of WSIS up to today, the subject of your question, and it is undoubtedly that it has given the possibility to have a conversation, a global conversation amongst everyone about the tenets of the problems, the challenges, and the opportunities of digitization. And it is a conversation in the multi-stakeholder format that involves, as you know, academia, private sector, governments, and the tech community. And because those voices are different, it is a challenging conversation. It is not an easy process, but it is a process that is precious to uphold. and precious to go forward. Now, it can be improved, and we hope it will, especially to make it more inclusive and very engaging to the young people. We own that. To them, because we are discussing what will impact their future. But this conversation has also had results. We’ve seen a contribution, a notable contribution, to reducing the digital divide. Again, it still exists, but connectivity is better, skills are better, people are more empowered. Looking forward, we must make sure that the new technologies, we continue to have the conversation about the potency of the new technologies, the impact it will have, it has already had. I had the privilege of being with the Minister in a panel about the impact on children as regards to the use of social media. All these things merit attention, merit attention and action. And perhaps one important issue is the IGF. We are here today. We have a place. The conversation has got a home. And this home needs to be permanent, it needs to be reinforced, it needs to be efficient, because this conversation needs to continue, having human rights as its centre, having the human as its centre, to see that digitisation benefits us all. Thank you.

Jorge Cancio: Thank you so much, Fabrizia. And this is a perfect segue to the second question, because you are already addressing some of the challenges, and sometimes it’s not an easy conversation, of course. So, the second question is what emerging digital trends present the most pressing opportunities, but also challenges, in updating the WSIS framework for the next decades or decades? And we will start with you, Jones.

Maggie Jones: Thank you. And I think we can all agree that the digital landscape is becoming increasingly complex. And it’s increasingly difficult for public policy makers and other stakeholders to navigate that new world. Which is why I think WSIS is playing, or will play, an increasingly important role in the future. Providing a joined-up framework to allow some of the discussions we’ve already been having to continue in an effective way. I would say that we need to avoid duplication and genuinely ensure that stakeholders from every part of the globe are part of that ongoing discussion in the future. The UK wants to see the WSIS 20 review being future-focused, recognising the future challenges. In connecting the unconnected, we need to use that as an opportunity to bring forward new investment. Which can help some of our developing nations have the full opportunities that many others have. And that means looking at affordability, it means looking at innovative solutions such as community networks, and encouraging digital content in local languages. The gender divide remains a huge challenge for us. Globally there were 244 million more men than women using the internet in 2023. So we would like to see a strengthened role for UN women and for us to work with them to address those issues in the future. We want to see a more formal role for the UN OHCHR in the WSIS process, raising the whole issue of human rights in the information society, which is becoming increasingly prominent. and a greater role for UNESCO’s work protecting journalists and tackling the damaging effects of Internet shutdowns. For example, the UN is proud to have led the Freedom Online Coalition efforts to tackle Internet shutdowns, and I’d like to highlight the FOC’s statement on Internet shutdowns during conflict, which has been launched today. Another issue we need to address is the environmental impact of information and communication technologies and all of the global greenhouse gas emissions that that challenge raises. We need global solutions to address that. So strengthening partnership through WSIS, we believe, will give us an effective platform to tackle those challenges and make sure that everybody benefits. But I think the key message here is we can’t be complacent. We have a lot to be proud of, but also we need to challenge ourselves and look genuinely at the new challenges and how WSIS can really, really step up and play an increasingly leadership role to make sure that everybody shares in the potential that we have for the future.

Jorge Cancio: Hear, hear. Thank you so much for that. And I think you mentioned community networks. It’s important to highlight the important work that was done in this community on that matter in the best practice forum on connectivity. So there’s a lot more to do, but we are eager to hear your views, Minister Tung.

Karianne Tung: Thank you. And thank you, Baroness, for the points that you made out at IGF. The governance of Internet is at its core, but I think we’ve seen during the last couple of days that there has been several different topics regarding Internet and digitalizations from subsea cables until protecting children and so forth. So I think it’s really important that we continue. to have this broad perspective, even though the governance of internet is and should be at this, at the core of the both the visas process, but also the IGF. And I want to point out something about the the action lines as well, because they are broad, they are tech neutral, I believe that is important, because we don’t know what kind of technology that hits us tomorrow. We are now discussing a lot about artificial intelligence, but also quantum, for instance, or other things will come in the future. So I think it’s important that we have the action lined, actually lined out in a way that we are able to take this continuously new discussions on the inside, for one thing, but I think there are some areas that we could implement also in the perspectives of the action line. And number one is already one I mentioned, artificial intelligence, it will impact our societies, very broadly, it is a tool for solving some of the huge societal challenges that we are facing right now. I really believe it is a tool for dividing the digital gap, it is a tool for doing a lot of things. However, it comes with huge ethical aspects as well. And being able to have this international discussion, the discussion about the ethical implication of the technology I believe that is one area that we could look further into when it comes to the action lines as well. Another thing, data governance, because data is feeding the artificial intelligence as well. And it is a fundament for artificial intelligence to be a real tool to use in the years to come. So I think we should have a look at data governance more thoroughly when it comes to open data, personal privacy, data sharing and so forth, because also this is ethical discussion, it affects humans. And last but not least, I also want to raise a personal issue for me, but an issue I know many people, parents, kids, are concerned about, and that is the internet-based platforms. They have many positive effects for connecting people, closing the digital divide, but as we discussed also yesterday, the tech companies or the platform, they are powerful, harmful algorithms. Our kids are screaming for help because they are having trouble with sleep, with health issues, body issues, and so forth, because of these algorithms. So we have to work together, both the governments, the civil society, but also the tech companies, to tackle these challenges that hit our kids. So that is kind of three examples where I could see we could have discussions in the future also for IGF and the business process.

Jorge Cancio: Thank you so much, Minister Tung. And as a parent, I completely relate to that. And if we think about it, social media, our algorithms, algorithms are the basis for platforms. Platforms only work with data, and data is only made available through artificial intelligence, and you cannot have that without connectivity. That’s why we discuss all these topics here at the IGF, and why it’s so important to continue this conversation. Jimson.

Jimson Olufuye: Thank you, George. The WSIS action lines, they are really still very, very relevant to address any emerging issues. And for that matter, emerging issues like artificial intelligence, data governance, information integrity. digital public infrastructure, digital public goods, et cetera, et cetera. Even many more will still emerge, but from a very close and constructive examination, the 11 Wishes Action Line covered anything that could come up, at least from my perspective. If you look at data, which is the king right now, which is foundation, data is addressed on the access to information and knowledge, Action Line C2, AI itself, which is an application. To be frank, it’s an application. It’s addressed on the Action Line C7. It’s also addressed on the ethics C8, and it will sustain in terms of local content, diversity, linguistic diversity, and so on and so forth. So basically, we don’t really need to make significant changes at all. We just need to contextualize anything that will come up. Cybersecurity is already there in terms of security and trust, and we also need to deepen the discussion, connecting it to the NRIs, and ensure that we cover the broad Action Line topics, as I mentioned earlier, in those evolving NRIs. In fact, from the information I got, some people are actually talking about even sub-national NRIs, because at the sub-national level, there are issues. So we are encouraging them, okay, discuss all this at a local level, because what we are looking at is a truly information society. So we don’t really need any new structural changes. Let’s sustain what we have. The IGF is brilliant. Let’s bring in the Sao Paulo Multistakeholder Guideline. Let’s do it better, and as such, we can tackle any emerging challenges appropriately. Thank you.

Jorge Cancio: Thank you, Jimson. And this is a thought that we’ve heard many times over during this week, that WSIS, and especially the action lines, have this technological neutrality. Everybody said they are technologically agnostic, and that means that they are open to many of these new developments. But of course, we need to contextualize them, what a difficult word, to the new realities and to adapt the work we do here, but also the UN agencies do. And this brings me also to a question about the how, the question how the UN agencies and all the stakeholders work together, and the third question, which is what strategic updates must the WSIS Plus 20 review consider within the WSIS architecture, the different component parts of WSIS, including the IGF, of course, to better address these pressing emerging governance challenges. And I will start with you, Kurtis.

Kurtis Lindqvist: Thank you. So WSIS Plus 20 is really a test of whether we still value global coordination over institutional control, and the IGF strength lies in what it enables, the open engagement across stakeholder groups without the pressure to negotiate or formulize the outcomes, as in binding declarations. And that flexibility is really a strength, it’s not a weakness. It’s precisely what makes the IGF an effective incubator for ideas and a catalyst for a lot of the cooperation. It provides a space. a real, physical, protected space for governments, civil society, businesses and the technical community to confront the shared problems without needing to reach a forced consensus, but to engage and share ideas. And there is growing fragmentation and this IGF’s open architecture really remains one of the few global platforms that are capable of holding cooperation together in that dialogue and through that discussion. But providing the space alone isn’t enough. We also, from ICANN, we helped create a paper called The IGF We Want, that outlined some of the steps of what we think a future IGF could look like. And it must be properly resourced, anchored in the business frameworks, and to be strengthened and to continue to play this important role as the neutral collaborative forum and support in this open stakeholder, multi-stakeholder format. And as part of that, we also believe that we should strengthen the output, we heard Minister Tsung say this this morning. We can have a strengthened output, we can also potentially use the IGF mandate to report to the General Assembly, but there should be more output coming out of the IGF. As a summary of all the phenomenal, fantastic work that’s been going on here for 20 years, and all the successes we have achieved over 20 years, and we together with ISOC produced a paper called The Footprints of 20 Years with the IGF, that actually highlights a lot of these successes that has happened, as we heard, the IXPs that have grown phenomenally in Africa and a lot of other work that’s been discussed here at the IGF. And strengthening the output and having the IGFs and the multi-stakeholder model reinforced and properly resourced is really the same model that we have been supporting globally, including our long-standing engagement with the network of the national and regional IGFs that I mentioned before. before, something I again want to reiterate that we shouldn’t forget in this, and this is really the model that the IGF reflects, the stakeholder-led coordination built on trust and practical outcomes. And if we replace this model with something that’s more rigid or politicized, we risk losing one of these few global spaces where we can have this meaningful digital cooperation and it can still happen.

Jorge Cancio: Thank you so much, Kurtis, and dialogue is definitely not a bug, but a feature of this space and it should permeate the rest of the WSIS framework, I understand, but let’s go to Fabrizia.

Fabrizia Benini: So when we think about strategic updates, I think we need to think about the changing environment in the last 20 years. What we’ve seen is that the internet and the digital services have permeated just about each and every of our actions. Now there’s not an even use of that throughout the world, but the extent to which digital interactions can touch each most intimate part of our lives makes it absolutely important that we safeguard what we already have. We have a multi-stakeholder model that is difficult, and it is absolutely key not to be complacent, to reinforce it, to revitalize it, to make it really participatory, to shy away very strongly against any temptation of internet shutdowns, any temptation of fragmentation, and to keep the internet really as a global, open space that is accessible to all. Now through the good work of ICANN, we know the architecture is robust, but we must ask ourselves the question, will it be robust? facing, in face, of the new technologies? Will the governance model hold? And this is what we did in Brussels. We held a conference on the governance of Web 4.0, the future, what is not yet here. But what is it that we need to be aware? Keeping our foundation multi-stakeholder model, keeping our governance, but adapting it, protecting it to make sure that it continues to really to serve all.

Jorge Cancio: Thank you so much, Fabrizia, for referring to this need to update and to adapt to new challenges like the metaverse, this very important conference you organized a couple of months ago, right? So that is something that definitely has to feed in also at the global level here in the IGF. And we are getting closer to the end of the panel section, but we still have one question, which is our fourth question. What are the concrete ways WSIS and indeed the IGF can better integrate the implementation of the Global Digital Compact, and also align with 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda to achieve the governance coherence, and in the end, not leaving anyone behind and making information society for all. And here we will have all of you again taking the floor, starting with you, Minister Tung.

Karianne Tung: Thank you. I think it is important that we are building on the fundaments from WSIS, because we’ve seen that there has been tendency to do parallel processes, and we should avoid this also because it is an issue of capacity. to be a part of different processes going on at the same time about the same thing. I believe that the WSIS should be the lead process for digital cooperation where the GDC can be connected more towards and implemented together with the WSIS process as well. And that means that the things that we already do, the activities that are already being done, like the IGF, the best practice forums, the dynamic coalition, we can continue to do this but be better implemented so that we don’t have these parallel processes. And at the same time, doing WSIS and IGF, talking about the governance of Internet, we also have been talking about digital cooperation and the agenda on the IGF meetings and WSIS forum. They have always covered different topics within the governance of Internet and digital services, all from infrastructure to applications and so forth. So I think we already here see that there are some overlap between the GDC and WSIS, and it’s necessary that we are better able to coordinate and integrate these processes that are going on. I mentioned earlier also that I think it’s important that we are able to communicate better the results and the messages that come out from IGF, so that we can better use it for policymaking and so forth, but also that we use the IGF meetings, the experts and the expertise, the knowledge and experiences that we got from the IGF common meetings, but also the networks from IGF, so that we can canalize these results, these messages. is better into the UN systems, so that we are actually better coordinated as well. And to do this, I think it’s important that we strengthen the IGF. For Norway, it is important that we are able to give IGF a permanent mandate. That is a key priority, so that it’s more predictable and more complementary on the existing structures that we already have. So permanent mandate is one thing. The other thing, that a permanent or a strengthened mandate also demands more predictable funding, which has been an issue for several years, really. But funding is really important, so that we are able to keep up this good work, these good meetings, these good processes, for the good of the world, for the good of the citizens. That is human-based. That is based on human rights that are open, that are free, that are democratic. So better coordination, strengthened and permanent mandate is my key takeaways.

Jorge Cancio: Thank you so much. And better coordination, integration and communication amongst all the pieces of the WSIS architecture. I take that away from your intervention as well. Now we have Jimson.

Jimson Olufuye: Yeah. Thank you. I actually mentioned earlier that the WSIS is like the parent structure. We must commend the head of states in 2003, 2005 for that agreement, and all the people that worked, because it was really all-encompassing. And talking about the link between WSIS, GDC, and of course IGF and SDG 2030, I want to underscore again that GDC is an offshoot of WSIS, because we had the enhanced cooperation working group. So, thanks to you, for opting us, in the last years, for having made this point by joining the forum and internet platform sharing, we finally are able to make it. We’re still in an environment where we have to go to home and we need to make sure that we have a lot of processes that lead to the summit of the future. So, indeed, it’s woven. By the way, as I mentioned earlier, I see it’s already operational in CSTD, working pretty well. So, the outcome of GDC can easily be intertwined with WSYS because they have the same kind of objective, but it has the realization of the sustainable development goal. How do we implement this? IGF is a beautiful forum, where we can always analyze those themes, the themes from GDC, we can look at it, map it, there’s already some form of mapping, we can still go ahead and map to KPI in terms of what we need to achieve by 2030. So, we already have the platform, we have the structure, IGF, everybody can come in and bring in what they’re doing, but I will emphasise, as I mentioned earlier, we need to encourage countries to deepen this dialogue with their sustainable development goal offices, because we cannot be discussing at the top level and at the grassroots, nothing much is happening. So, we encourage countries to take this dialogue seriously, the WSYS action line discussion, the GDC objectives of 1 to 5, and, of course, the SDG, mapping them as a measuring progress. By so doing, we can really easily see where we are, measure where we are, as we approach the next steps. the year 2030. Thank you.

Jorge Cancio: Thank you so much, Jimson, for reminding us that the GDC is part of the WSIS family and is a good, well-functioning family. We should all communicate with each other. Now, Baroness Jones.

Maggie Jones: Thank you. It’s understandable, I think, that increasing parts of the UN are beginning to address the challenges of digital technology because it’s, as we’ve been discussing, affecting so many parts of our lives now. But whilst it does that, and it’s quite understandable it does, I think we need to make sure that that doesn’t result in fragmentation and duplication, and that’s the real challenge, I think, we are dealing with here. The fact is that WSIS, our multi-stakeholder engagement, is very unique in this experience. And I think that’s one of our great strengths, and we need to make sure that that is the basis on which the work goes forward so that that wonderful partnership that we’ve been developing can endure. And we also think that there’s a role for the UN interagency coordination through the UN Group on the Information Society. Having said that, the Global Digital Compact, agreed last year at the UN, was a great achievement, and it does give us a good basis to go forward with the WSIS review. So we want to now use the review to ensure that the GDEC is perhaps integrated more into the WSIS processes going forward so that we don’t have that duplication that is a concern, and we can promote alignment a lot more easily through the UN system. We were pleased that in April, the UN Commission for Science and Technology development supported this approach, and the Office for Digital and Emerging Technologies can play its part in supporting coordination amongst UN partners, making sure that there is that coherence that we can all identify as necessary. We also think that the review of the 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda will be a critical milestone in ensuring that the full potential of that information and communication technologies reaches out to all and is part of our sustainable community development. We believe in all of that, the IGF can play an important role, and giving it a permanent mandate, which is one of our themes this morning, I think is absolutely critical for that. And we also see going forward that there is a greater role for national and regional IGFs to play to make sure that we build on the model that we can prove works. So promoting more community voices, making sure that they feed into the ultimate UN processes I think is really important. So those are the sorts of ways that we think we can move forward, but the key message for us is streamline as much as we can, use the model that we have here that we think works, but understand that the UN will want to take big global strategic decisions on these issues.

Jorge Cancio: Thank you so much, Baroness Jones. No fragmentation, no duplication, but integration. Kurtis, do you agree?

Kurtis Lindqvist: Yes, absolutely. I think that looking at the GDCs and the SDGs, I think the implementation of this begins really with the infrastructure layer, and the infrastructure begins with the coordination. At ICANN our mission is very technical, but our impact is very foundational. It’s what enables everything else. We manage the unique identifiers that allow the Internet to function as one unified network that enables everything from e-commerce to emergency alerts to digital government services and at scale. At ICANN, we work very much on contributing to Internet resiliency by coordinating these technical identifiers to ensure that we have a globally interoperable Internet. Beyond that, we also work, for example, to the Coalition for Digital Africa, something that we initiated. Through this, we are supporting deployment of additional infrastructure in underserved regions, for example, to the root servers. We work on capacity building efforts on deploying more DNSSEC that will make the Internet more secure and robust. Beyond that, we work a lot on what is called universal acceptance through academia. We are not just advocating for universal acceptance. Universal acceptance is the availability of the Internet in scripts and languages that are non-Latin based, which is a very important part of making the Internet accessible. We are working actively both on technical readiness work but also building local capacity development and global partnerships to further this work. Through the Coalition for Digital Africa, we have worked through the Association of African Universities to develop advanced multilingual access in academia institutions on that continent and help them develop courses and curriculums to further develop this and enhance the awareness and development of universal acceptance initiatives. This is really important, we believe. These are just some examples of what meaningful access looks like, so strengthening the infrastructure, making it available in local languages and scripts. Here, the IGF really has a role to play as the connectivity tissue between these efforts. the Global Development Goals, Practical Implementations – sorry, the Sustainable Development Goals – and Practical Implementation, and also with the Business Action Lines. And this work really supports both the Business Action Lines, the multiple of the SDGs, and they are overlapping. We have the matrix that shows how these tie together. For example, on resilient infrastructure, quality education to multilingual access, reducing inequalities – those are all supported through this work. And WSIS and the IGF can much better work on integrating this, as we just mentioned – I completely agree with this – by surfacing and scaling these efforts and implementation to raise awarenesses. And this really means that we need to elevate the IGF, as I said before. We shouldn’t bypass it, we should invest in it. We should really not try to duplicate or replicate it, as the Baroness just said – I completely agree with that. And really protect this work that’s ongoing, and protecting the single interoperable core from fragmentation, both on a technical level, but also on the institutional level, as you just talked about.

Jorge Cancio: Thank you, Kurtis. And thank you for highlighting all that very practical work on the ground, and relating it to the IGF. And I like that metaphor very much, as a connecting tissue, because that also, I think, is a challenge for us, to imagine the new ways of cooperation and coordination, of collaboration and communication we need, to really make it even more efficient, working more effectively to achieve the goals. Fabrizia, what is your take?

Fabrizia Benini: So like other speakers before me, one of our tenets, in the strong support that we have for the YSYS process, is that we need to avoid duplication, we need to increase synergies that need to be mutually reinforcing. So these are very good words, but how is it that we go about that? Well, our approach is to propose a roadmap system. We’ve seen that work has already been done in the past years to map the SDGs and the YSYS action lines. We’ve seen recently the STD busy on that, incorporating also the GDC commitments. So we think that there is room for the action line facilitators together with the relevant bodies in the UN that can contribute meaningfully to set out actionable roadmaps that will track the implementation and the progress starting from the YSYS action lines, the SDG goals and the GDC commitments. So that we are able to have a clear understanding of where we are, a clear understanding of what needs to be done, and therefore take the action in the appropriate fora to make sure that those gaps are filled. But unless there is clarity as to where we are, we can’t coordinate well. So that would be our proposal.

Jorge Cancio: Thank you so much for that refreshing intervention, bringing us from principles, which are very important, to very actionable proposals, and a proposal that resonates a lot with what has been discussed this week in the session we had before with the co-facilitator, Ambassador Ekitele from Kenya, already mentioned that this idea of a joint implementation roadmap of roadmaps based on the action lines and integrating the work is something they will definitely consider and put to the discussion of stakeholders and member states. So that’s a really good outcome of this week, for instance, of discussions. But before we congratulate ourselves, I think now it’s the time to enter into interaction with our public and we can change to the next segment of this session and we will have two minutes in addition for that. There are two microphones. Now they are getting highlighted. This is great for somebody so short-sighted like myself. Please get on the row if you have any question, any message you want to share with this panel, with the rest of the audience. Please keep it short and sweet, a maximum of two minutes per intervention and please introduce yourself and from time to time, I don’t know if she might be highlighted as well, our online moderator will look whether we have interventions from the online world. So I’ll start with the left. Please introduce yourself.

Audience: Thank you, I will be speaking in Spanish. These have been very interesting things that have been said. Devices, that would be helpful. I understand Spanish so I don’t have to. I understand Spanish so then you can take this one. And maybe I can help in the translation if somebody doesn’t get it. Ready? So I think we’re going to put that out. How nice to be able to speak in my own language, because we are a linguistic diversity, cultural diversity. And in different countries, we’ve talked about this content and the use of technologies. It’s not the same just legislate on technology as about the construction of the technology. What we’re using is technology, which is produced elsewhere under other rules. In the past 20 years, lots of discussion have been about how do we regulate something that we do not control, because it’s not part of our legislation. Taxes, for example, content control. We’ve tried to focus on that in different ways, controlling content to avoid abuse, trying to connect everyone. Then everyone wants to have the last say in the systems. We see that in our countries as well. Technology, particularly after the pandemic, have become increasingly relevant. How can we preach to those who are already converts? We have to bring them to the table. For years, we’ve said that we’re part of the technological community. But they have general science, to put it that way. We have to take all of this out of the IGF to other places. Don’t we enter into discussions in parliaments on legislation, for example? bullying women, then the focus is completely different than the digital topic is. And it’s very difficult to regulate the platforms. This is a very relevant discussion, and it should be taken to the next level. So the first thing we have to do is to bring to the table the players who are not us, preach to the converts. It’s not relevant. We know this. We can work together. But if we don’t bring the others in, in a level of advocacy in our own countries, we can’t get anywhere. We have to negotiate not among ourselves, but with others, so that we can have a common resource. The international is very important. It’s quite clear. The development of regulations and policies have to be integrated in a mullet that can be used by everyone. But it’s not used by everyone. We know that. And so reality, we have different cultural and political realities. So what we do at the IGF, we can have to avoid the vultures, not only our own voices.

Jorge Cancio: Thank you very much, Eric, for that intervention, a little longer than expected. We’re going to take a few interventions and then we’ll move on to the panel’s reactions. So I’ll switch again to English. Thank you, Eric, for that intervention, which was a bit longer than expected. But we will take some and then hear if the panel has any reactions. I go to my right. Please introduce yourself. And please keep it to two minutes.

Audience: Thank you very much, William Lee, Australian government. Obviously, I want to thank Norway for its excellent hosting of the IGF and this excellent panel. You’ve talked about some really important issues. And these are really tough challenges to solve. So I’m going to go to my left. I’m going to go to my right. I’m going to go to my left. And I think as governments, we’re all scratching around looking for the best way to solve them. And I think WSIS is a critical tool towards achieving global action on many of those difficult problems. I think the value of WSIS Plus 20 will be the opportunity to have an ideas conversation, hearing all voices, including those from least developed countries and small island developing states, and to translate that to global norms in an action-orientated agenda, taking forth what works and seeing new partnerships form to close those digital divides. I know we are starting to see some really positive ideas emerge from Switzerland, from the EU, from ICANN, from ISOC, from Australia and from others. But I wondered if you had any reflections on how we continue to promote a positive ideas conversation and avoid the temptation to simply revert to a conversation over language, which won’t deliver us the actions and outcomes that as a global community we need. Thank you.

Jorge Cancio: Thank you so much, Will, and thank you for highlighting also the Australian non-paper which is worthwhile, has a lot of ideas in it, good basis for contributing to the conversation. We’ll see, do we have anything online? Please, Eleonora.

Online moderator: Yes, we do. Thank you, Jorge. We have a few questions online. I can start with the first. Yes. From Musa Maigari from Nigeria. What strategies can be implemented to enhance the participation of youth and women in the IGF and WSIS processes?

Jorge Cancio: Thank you so much, Eleonora. And I think we can have a first round of reactions to what was said. Anyone from you on the panel? Si, Fabrizia.

Fabrizia Benini: I would like to answer the first, Eric. the first question, because my Executive Vice President, Enne Virkunen, was here at the opening ceremony at the Digital Public Goods, and she did address some of those issues. The Union has just adopted an international strategy for digital, where we set out a vision of enhanced and increased digital partnerships with various countries of the world. We are very aware that it’s not just a question of explaining what we do and saying, oh, would you like to do the same? No, it’s not that at all. We are setting out what we call the EU offer, a set of tools that will allow, through very much the use of open source, those partner countries to take them and adapt them to their own internal uses. This is the case on connectivity, on cyber security, and it will be the case on all the layers of the internet stack, going from identity to decentralised social media. So our objective over the years is to deepen those partnerships and to make sure that we all become, in fact, actors, not only consumers, and that is an action on which the Union is very much focused. And, of course, we are happy to share whatever tangible outcomes we will be able to reach at the next IGF.

Jorge Cancio: Thank you so much, Fabrizia. Anyone else in the panel? Please keep it short and sweet.

Maggie Jones: Yes, so I just wanted to pick up the issue about women, and one of the points made was about how the internet increasingly is bullying women, and certainly that’s been our experience as well in the UK. We have taken action with the Online Safety Act in the UK and we’re very proud of that, but it’s only the first step that we’re taking. And one of the issues, the public debate in the UK has very much been, what are our neighbors doing? What are the other countries doing? So it’s a much broader debate than perhaps we might think in the confines here. We genuinely want to reach out to develop new global norms about the standards that we can expect in terms of the technology companies. So it’s a much wider and deeper debate, I think, than we might think. And the other thing is, I think we’re absolutely right that, I think the last point was talking about empowering women, and that is such a huge challenge for us. We’re doing our bit, the UN Women’s Committees are doing their bit. We’ve got a huge, big challenge to really address these issues, particularly in the global south. And so I really do genuinely hope that going forward that will be a key priority for us.

Jorge Cancio: Thank you so much. Jimson, very shortly.

Jimson Olufuye: Yes. Am I audible? Yes. Looking at how to deepen this discussion at the local level, and also engage the youths, there’s a saying that money answers all things. And that is to say, they need support. The IGFSA has been doing a marvelous work, and if you are not yet a member, please don’t be a member. It’s an instrument to support the NII at the local level. We need more support, more input to strengthen the ability to provide some resources to those local activities for capacity building, for the next generation building the next leadership. So please join us so that we can together meet this expectation. Thank you.

Jorge Cancio: Thank you so much. And we will get back to our audience, the lady in green, please.

Audience: Thank you, Jorge. My name is Silvia Cadena. I’m the Chief Development Officer of the World Wide Web Consortium. We work on accessibility, internationalization, privacy, security, and more recently, sustainability of the web that has allowed so much growth and development over the last decade. We would like to raise your interest and attention to the importance of maintenance of the core infrastructure that allows all of this growth to happen. There is a lot of emphasis on innovation and looking into the future, but a lot of those things don’t happen that easy if we don’t have really good succession planning for all of these technical pioneers that are retiring to play golf and do other things that they like in the connections with the next generation. So if the next generation comes in, it’s important from the technical perspective that they maintain the systems that have allowed all of this growth and they understand what is the innovation that they are bringing in so that they don’t break anything that took so long to reach the scale that we have today. And that’s very important for interoperability. And then Minister Tung mentioned the importance of investment in funding and I think it’s very important to consider also what are the incentives to shape the landscape, not to only be adopters of technology. So what incentives Norwegian companies, for example, can have to participate in the development of global open standards for the web and how that brings also diversity and inclusion into this landscape. And that applies to every country. We have a very small number of organizations participating in these processes. and it’s very important that the engineers around the world do engage. Thank you very much.

Jorge Cancio: Thank you, Silvia. Minister Tung, do you want to react as we refer to Norway?

Karianne Tung: Yes, please. The reason I’m into digitalisation and technology is because I’m into the development of society. I want society to be a place where everyone can succeed, whether you are from the north of Norway, the south of Norway, whether you are rich or poor, whether you are a kid or you are an adult. And I really believe that the technology has to reflect the values that we want to build our society on. So to be able to think about gender equivalence, social rights, whatever, women in tech or so forth, we have to bring these perspectives and these values into the infrastructure, whether we are talking about education as an infrastructure, whether we are talking about the internet as an infrastructure. For me, that is the value that I bring to the table when I want to be the most digitalised country in the world, because I really believe it is about how we develop our society and what kind of fundaments we build this society on. Human rights, openness, transparency, democracy, everything has to be a part of the infrastructure. And the youth has a really important voice in that matter as well, and that’s why I specifically addressed the youth when I opened Day Zero here at this hall on Monday, because we have to involve every perspective in the technology.

Jorge Cancio: Thank you so much, Karine. Any other quick reaction? Otherwise, thank you for your patience. The gentleman to my right, please introduce yourself.

Audience: Kossay Al-Shati from Kuwait. First, I want to congratulate… Norway on a successful IGF and for these wonderful, engaging, positive atmosphere days that we spent here, so all the thanks for the Government of Norway for hosting us. We were part of the WSIS and the IGF since its inception more than 20 years ago, and we enjoyed wonderful, successful years that we have achieved a lot, whether on the WSIS Action Lines or on the IGF. And it is normal to see things evolve and to address the future issues and challenges. We saw this reflected in the GDC and we look forward that the WSIS Plus 20 foresee the future for us. Yet I do believe that one of the most successful outcome or the most successful outcome of the WSIS is the IGF. And this non-binding, non-outcome-oriented platform should continue. And while we are voicing the support of its continuation, we still believe that within the WSIS Plus 20 process, it’s still a grey area of this, if the IGF will continue as a platform or not. While we successfully addressed issues like diversity, bridging digital divide, diversity, and the multi-stakeholder processes, and we were successful on that as a culture and as a conduct, whether global, regional and national, yet the IGF, which allows us as stakeholders to speak and talk and engage in policy dialogue in equal footing on all issues, and it serves us well, we believe that it is still a grey area for its continuation or not, and we are concerned if this platform did not continue. Therefore, we want to believe, or we want to have… kind of assurances that such platform will continue or what to do from here till the decision has been taken to support it, thank you.

Jorge Cancio: Thank you so much. And I think many of us agree on those points and there’s opportunity to engage with the co-facilitators with the process. Please do so. The more, the better. I will turn to Eleonora and please speak a bit loudly to the microphone so that everybody can hear you.

Online moderator: Sure, okay, I will try to project. So we have another question from Segun Omolosho. As we approach WSIS plus 20, how can we ensure that multi-stakeholder inputs at IGF and other platforms are effectively integrated into WSIS follow-up mechanisms, especially at the national level?

Jorge Cancio: Yeah, maybe that’s the million dollar question or the billion dollar question, which many of us have been thinking about. But I don’t know if any of you has another very concrete and specific proposal.

Jimson Olufuye: Yes, this is Jimson speaking. Well, that’s a very good question. You know, how do we ensure that multi-stakeholder model is effective at the national level? I think we just to appeal to leadership, basically. Because we need champions. You can imagine the private sector that I led in 2012 to kind of cover the gap in Africa. So we need leadership, regulators, stakeholders to take up the mantle and engage with the South Polo multi-stakeholder guideline, where you can scope and ensure that all relevant stakeholders are brought in. for meaningful participation. This is for our own good. This is to ensure that we arrive at the information society we want, with the prosperity of everybody, so that nobody is left behind. So, I will really make this appeal to all our leadership, government, parliamentarians here, please make a case to ensure that all relevant stakeholders are brought in so that we can have useful dialogue for the benefit of our society.

Jorge Cancio: That’s quite clear. I see also Kurtis and then Baroness Jones.

Kurtis Lindqvist: I think this was a phenomenal question. I think George really summarized this. This is the billion dollar question, right? And I think one thing that worries me is that we talked here about how successful this model has been. And what worries me is that it’s been so successful we started taking it for granted, right? And I think that is the greatest worry. We can’t take this for granted. This is something the multistakeholder model we have to defend and highlight the benefits, the value, the phenomenal inclusivity it brings every single day. And we need to do this on a national level. We all need to engage with governments. I’ve got two on the panel, so you’re engaged. But there’s many other countries, and we need to do this every single day. This engagement needs to go on to show the value we create to this model, because only that way we will protect it. And I think it’s a very, very good question, and I’m very glad it was asked, because I think this is something we can’t afford to start taking the current permissionless, innovationless model of the Internet that has enabled all these other topics we’re discussing here. The Internet’s principles are what enable all these discussions, and sometimes I think we forget that.

Jorge Cancio: Thank you, Kurtis. Baroness?

Maggie Jones: Well, firstly, I’d say that I’m very pleased that so many UK representatives are here, and we’ve played a part in a number of my colleagues have played a part in the panels contributing to the debate. So I think the very fact that we’re here, we’re contributing our views, but also listening, and that’s a two-way process of engagement, and we take that back into our own organisations. So, I think that development and the wisdom that we’ve learnt here will help us develop our own policies in the future. So that’s a very important point for us, that we don’t have a static view, it’s very much one that’s learning as we go along. The second thing is that we have a very successful IGF conference in the UK and I think the more we can do events like that, local and the regional level, will always enhance the debate that we need to have. So, it’s not a perfect system, but we are trying our best to make sure that we don’t just have these debates in isolation, but we take them back to our own organisation.

Jorge Cancio: Thank you so much. Then shall we go to the gentleman, I think it was your turn, or well, let’s go to the right. I think Raul is pointing to the right, so let’s take the gentleman there. Please introduce yourself and keep it to below two minutes.

Audience: Thank you, Jorge. My name is Rian Duarte, I’m from the Brazilian Association of Internet Service Providers. Thank you for the panel for a wonderful discussion. In the last few days, we had many relevant and high-level debates and we have seen global cooperations on this stage and on the other many stages, and we should hear from them as they are usually part of the problems we face, but are not always an active part of the solutions. On the other side, we still see an undersized role for small and medium enterprises and open source solutions. So, on the topic of updating governance, I would like to hear from the panel about how we can strengthen the voice and participation of small and medium enterprises as well as open source solutions in IGF and WSIS, especially from the global south.

Jorge Cancio: Thank you so much. Any immediate reactions? to that, so shall we take another one for starters, Kurtis?

Kurtis Lindqvist: I think it’s a, I want to come back to this, it’s a very very important thing that we just highlighted again, because the current internet and again we just discussed here, every day we have hundreds of thousands if not millions of SMEs who exist fully or partly because of the current internet, the current model that enabled them to create and innovate and become businesses, and you’re absolutely right, we need to make that heard, we need to bring them into these discussions. It is a bit of a pull and push, I mean we need to get them to engage and understand that, I think we come back to this, that we have started taking this for granted and therefore it’s not a threat, it’s not nothing to care about, but they should care about this, you know, it’s their livelihood, their business models depends on the outcomes here and these discussions, and we need to bring that message out, we need to bring them into this discussion, not necessarily physically, but through the local regional IGFs, through the remote online participation today, you know, there’s many ways to engage with these forums and make your voices heard, but you’re absolutely right, we need to bring those those voices in here.

Jorge Cancio: Jimson, you want to intervene?

Jimson Olufuye: Yes, very good question. I run an SME, Contemporary Consulting, and everything is on the internet, we are highly involved in digitalization, cybersecurity, integration, do research, so there is a lot of benefit being involved, and I encourage other SMEs that could be following to be part of the conversation, because there’s a tendency for some to say, okay, oh, Jimson is there, these guys are there, let them be doing it. We need it to be part of us, because the internet is a great resource for productivity, for creating new opportunity, for employment, and bringing in new innovation, and so it is in our interest to support it, and another way is through association. And that’s why we formed the Africa City Alliance, encouraging us as an association across Africa to be part of it, bringing your view, companies bringing your view so that we can collate and present it together. So for example, in Nigeria, talking about startup law, there is a startup law encouraging new businesses. There is even funding for AI project. So all these are true conversation we normally have. So bringing your ideas so that we can enrich the ecosystem, the opportunity is there for us. Thank you so much.

Jorge Cancio: Minister.

Karianne Tung: Thank you. Just a short comment from me, because I think it’s really important that we do have the different stakeholders here while we are debating topics that regards them. It’s crucial for the legitimacy of IGF as well. And I think it’s also a responsibility that I, we have as government to make sure that we are able to include the different stakeholders from our countries to be part of IGF, either physically or digitally. It was from Norway side, it was prioritized to work with our different embassies around the world to be able to mobilize participants from different countries to come to IGF in Norway this year. And especially it was participation from Global South. And I think Global South are highly participating in this year’s IGF, but it could have been better. I think we have to agree on that as well.

Jorge Cancio: Thank you so much, Minister Tung. It’s always a challenge to reach those participants, be it civil society, but also business with less resources or technical community, of course, or academia. Let’s turn to the gentleman there.

Audience: Good morning. Thank you very much for the opportunity. My name is Raul Echeverria. I’m the Executive Director of. I’m a member of the IGF, and I’m also a member of the Latin American Internet Association, and also a MAG member this year. I have heard all the comments, and I think that I share almost everything that has been said here, with regard to the role of WSIS and IGF and the implementation of GDC, the need for improvement, the need for renewal of IGF, which improvements. And of course, I think that the importance of the IGF, the implementation of GDC, and the need for more implementation of WSIS, and I think that I share almost everything here, but the perception is that the reality is not so easy, and there will be more complications in the negotiations. So my first question is what are the priorities of the IGF, and what are the priorities of the government? And I think that what the Minister Tung has mentioned right now is that I have the impression that it is just a few governments that are really involved in the discussion, and at least from the capitals. I’m sure that the missions, many missions are involved in the conversations in New York, but most of them are not aware of what is happening and what is the negotiation that is going on. So what do you think? How can we involve other governments in the discussion to have really a decision that reflects the interests of all the world? Thank you.

Jorge Cancio: Thank you so much, Raul. And while our panel thinks about a possible reply, I would invite you to really take the opportunity to row at the microphones. We still have some time. for interventions, please use it, don’t be shy, you see this is a safe environment, you can intervene, there are answers, it’s very interactive, please do use that opportunity. But now, going back to those questions from Raoul, which are really straightforward, and I see Minister Tung.

Karianne Tung: Thank you, I want to give a short reply on the first question, which was about the biggest challenges, because we sound very agree, but we know the times until December will be challenging, and it demands a lot of work from the co-facilitators, from every stakeholder, to be able that we get over the finish line in a good way, and my hope is that we are able to do so in a way of consensus. But the biggest challenge, or the worst thing that can happen is more fragmentation, in my opinion, and that is what I fear the most. Thank you.

Jorge Cancio: That’s really important, Kurtis.

Kurtis Lindqvist: It’s a long way to December, as the Minister just said, a lot of things can happen between now and then. I think there are some very, very careful optimism from these days, I think there is a lot to build on, and that doesn’t mean that there is unanimous consensus, and I think that will be a challenge going forward, to build on what we have, and work through that, and make sure that all the voices are heard, and I think it’s a very promising session this morning with the co-facilitators, they were very open for the dialogue with all the stakeholders and take that input into account. Obviously at the end of the day in December this will be a nation-state negotiation, but I hope that we as technical community and the other multi-stakeholder groups can actually provide input into this and help to form a very constructive consensus before then showcase why that is important. and not just have the necessarily multilateral voices and concerns led, but actually the much wider consents and that will hopefully at the end bring us to what we had just talked here this morning.

Jorge Cancio: Thank you so much, Kurtis. I see Jimson.

Jimson Olufuye: The major challenge I see, even though the co-facilitators, they’ve demonstrated their resolve to involve all stakeholders but the real main challenge I see and which I try to battle every time is to get our national government to be involved, to involve all of us, all the stakeholders in the conversation. It is so important that national government bring in all the other stakeholders. What are you thinking about? What is your view as you go forward to negotiate? Because we are not in the room to negotiate. So that is a serious challenge that is really in my heart. Look, even some are not even that responsive in terms of even being involved. So that’s answer the question. The second question is real challenge. How do we get all the government at the national level to be involved with this? So we continue to encourage them. We continue to use this platform to say, okay, let the multistakeholder approach, let it be practicalized at the national level, scope the views of your citizens and let them be part of the delegation. Let them be part of the delegation. You know, in the private sector, we can fund ourselves by and large and I believe others can get their fund. But our voices need to be heard because we are all working together for the progress and prosperity of our nation using the digital technologies. Thank you.

Jorge Cancio: Thank you so much, Jimson. Baroness.

Maggie Jones: I would just say that we’ve spent the last 20 years trying to prove ourselves here and I think, you know, we’ve got to the point where we have done that. I think if we can get to the point where we become permanent part of the UN family, if you like, and we don’t have to keep proving ourselves, then our voices will more broadly be heard. But I do also think that we have a communications challenge, because there’s so much good things going on here, and perhaps we’re not, we all take responsibility for this, not so good at taking it back to our own governments and our own stakeholders and talking up the sorts of activities that happen here. But I think if we can get the permanent status sorted, then we will be a more recognised part of the international framework, and I think that would be really important.

Jorge Cancio: Thank you so much, Baroness Jones. I think, if I may abuse my role as moderator, sometimes the biggest challenge is to imagine that a positive outcome, which is more than just a zero-sum game, is possible. And to see what are the needed parts that allow all stakeholders worldwide to agree on such an outcome. And I’m hopeful that the discussions we had here will be a contribution to imagining that possibility. But I wonder whether Eleonora, you have any input from online?

Online moderator: Yes, there is one more question from Musa Maigari from Nigeria. How can the IGF address the challenges posed by artificial intelligence and other disruptive technologies?

Jorge Cancio: Thank you so much, Eleonora. I will do a last call for – please go into the microphone. This is your last opportunity. Later on, we will be shifting the segment, so please think about it. While I see whether our panel has any reaction Well, actually the IGF has been discussing AI at least for eight years. I remember in 2017 IGF in Geneva, which we happened to organize a Swiss government together with the Swiss IGF that it was already very prominent and also the effects of the algorithmic systems to the public sphere and to the democratic system, but The word is yours Kurtis, you wanted to..

Kurtis Lindqvist: Thank you, I Think that you know the IGF doesn’t As you just pointed out. I mean AI has been allowed to come into the IGF agenda And I think you know large emerging challenges has been picked up in the past by the IGF So I think we already have the forum for this as part of the mag and they do the work or the scheduling and the working working groups The open forums. I think that’s part of the agenda that’s being set already I think we do pick up a lot of emerging technologies and I think one thing we don’t talk So I mean this had all the open and structured scheduling But it’s all this hallway discussions this phenomenal discussion of ecosystem that goes on around the formal schedule but also allows for a dialogue around some of these age these discussions and topics and Really the incubator of ideas and I think the IGF has been very successful at that over the years

Jorge Cancio: Thank You Kurtis, any other reaction on this question I see Jimson

Jimson Olufuye: Okay All right. Thank you As a matter of fact the topic of artificial intelligence has been on for quite a long time It was one of my courses in the 80s in the university So what the ramification of it now is very serious an idea is a beautiful platform When we have all these two good as we can also examine the ramifications of artificial intelligence. So one thing that we are taking away here is that a lot of best practices approaches that governments are taking to tackle the negative part, the abuse part, and the positive part, encourage it. We get it here and go back to our national and encourage maybe the enactment of a law to ensure that the AI is used for good, is used for the benefits of the society. So there has to be some form of regulation and that’s something coming out of this place. AI can serve us well, can help us to realize the sustainable development goal faster, but at the same time, it can be useful. And that is why it has to be properly regulated and there has to be some laws to guide those that are developing the application. So coming from IGF, we get the policy framework, we get to know about best practices, we take it to our countries and localize those discussions. So that’s why the IGF platform remains a credible platform to discuss these issues and other emerging issues that we’ll see.

Jorge Cancio: Thank you so much, Jimson. I saw Baroness, then Minister, and Fabrizio, everybody has something to say on this topic.

Maggie Jones: Well, I was just going to say very briefly that I absolutely agree with the potential of AI and we need to harness it as AI for good for all nations. But it is a specific challenge for us in terms of safety and security as well. And so we have a very particular role here in just sharing our expertise and sharing good practice because this is a global challenge for us. But at the end of the day, the approach that was taken, which is that we are tech neutral in a sense, that we address all of the tech challenges, I think is the right one. And it will be addressed, I think, as we go on, increasingly in our forums, just as a matter of course. So I think we’ve got the right structures to do it, but it is a very specific and unique challenge and a concern for us, for all nations.

Jorge Cancio: Thank you. Minister.

Karianne Tung: Thank you. I think it’s important that each and every country has good discussion on how they want to use artificial intelligence as a technology. What are the challenges and what are the possibilities in each and every country, because it may differ. For instance, Norway is an energy nation, so for us to use artificial intelligence in the field of energy is an obvious thing. But together, I think we need to have international guidelines and international discussion about the ethical implication of the technology as well. And the discussion that are going on on artificial intelligence when it comes to best practice and so forth, I think it’s really valuable for every country, whether you want to use it within the health care sector or the energy system or within public administration and so forth.

Jorge Cancio: Thank you so much. Fabrizia.

Fabrizia Benini: I think the added value of the IGF, it’s its components. Who is it made of? What are the voices that you can hear here? And when you have discussions about the artificial intelligence, the technical community will have one take, governments another, the business community another and so forth. And this conversation is extremely useful, but it needs to be passed on to those other institutions, both in the UN family and in national governments that are already working on AI. Because what we want to avoid is duplication, but what we want to increase is a synergetically approach that is mutually reinforcing. So get the voices, get the problems out, have the opportunity to have that discussion with each and every one, but make sure that then it becomes actionable in those fora where work is already taking place.

Jorge Cancio: Absolutely, and that brings us back to this idea of the connecting tissue we need to invent, we need to imagine and then need to implement if we are able to agree on how to do it by December. I see, is there a gentleman taking the last opportunity to take the mic? Please go ahead.

Audience: Yes, please. My name is Bastiaan Winkel and I work for the Department of Justice in the Netherlands. This week we’ve highlighted the advantages of an open and free internet. We’ve underlined that we should stick to the working of the internet based on trust and multi-stakeholderism. Working on law enforcement, I’m also exposed to the dark sides of the internet. Online hate speech flourishing, cease and materials widely available, our youth getting addicted to the mobile phones and to the social media platforms. I’m glad we’re also addressing these issues at the IGF, but what can we do and how can we address these issues to also give our citizens the same protection online as they have in the physical world?

Jorge Cancio: Another very important question. We will take the very last one from Eleonora, from online, and then we will wrap up this part.

Online moderator: Thank you very much, Jorge. I actually just wanted to share a contribution from the online chat and then I’ll move into the question. So you may remember earlier, Sagoon had asked about how do we ensure multi-stakeholder inputs are truly integrated into the work that we do. follow-up, especially at the national level, and we had a nice discussion with Mark Carvell, formerly of the UK government, longtime friend of the IGF, who made the point that the IGF’s more than 176 NRIs are going to be vital for bringing those inputs in. So I just wanted to share that and move on to a final question from our remote hub in Benin. It was asked in French, but I’ll just translate into English. Speaking of technological evolution, some regions in Africa are excluded from both the challenges and the benefits. What measures is the IGF taking to promote full inclusion, particularly of countries in the global south?

Jorge Cancio: Thank you so much Eleonora, and let’s do a final round of reactions to these two last questions. Is there anyone from you, Minister?

Karianne Tung: I can start with the first question from the gentleman from the Netherlands, and yesterday I really believe it was a good panel on this stage about protecting children from harmful algorithms, and we also see reports from the Norwegian security police that very young children are being captured by right-wing radicals on the different social media platforms, and then further on to other platforms. So I think we need to do more. We need the government to do more and better regulation, and I really believe that the European Union has done a great deal here when it comes to the Digital Service Act, for instance, which is good. So regulation is one of the answers. We need the tech companies to do more. They are not doing enough, so we need them to do more, and in the end I think we need more international cooperation on these issues, because if we… I really believe in an open and free internet, but to be able to have the open and free internet, we have to have trust. and we have to deal with the challenges that also Internet brings to the floor. So, I believe along these three pillars, government, regulation, international cooperation and that the tech companies have to do more themselves to tackle these challenges. So, I’m happy that you raised that question. Thank you.

Jorge Cancio: Thank you so much, Minister. Baroness.

Maggie Jones: I think we can all identify with the dark side that you talked about and it’s a huge challenge for all of us. We’re all trying in our own way to deal with this. I mentioned earlier that we have our own piece of legislation, the Online Safety Act, which is attempting to set some standards for how children in particular should be protected online. And I have to say that we have got very good dialogue going with the tech companies to ensure that that’s being implemented properly. But for us, we would like to share our experience and also to learn from other nations. So, we do begin to set some sort of global norms about what is acceptable to appear on the Internet so that we don’t necessarily all just do it country by country but form a bit more of an alliance on all of this. So, that is the way that we would like to approach it. But it’s a very good challenge and as has been said, we absolutely need to address it because otherwise we won’t maintain the trust and people won’t feel enabled to use the wonderful technology that we’ve got to its best advantage because they simply won’t trust it. So, it’s a huge and important challenge for us.

Jorge Cancio: Thank you so much. Any other inputs to these two last questions? Jimson?

Jimson Olufuye: Very quickly, there was a report by UNECA underscoring the need for more investments in Internet penetration and a 10% increase in Internet penetration. will give us about 8.2% increase in GDP per capital. It also showed a 10% increase in cybersecurity maturity which enabled up to a 5.4% increase in GDP per capital. This underscores the fact that our countries need to prioritize infrastructural connectivity access for more prosperity and for more people to be reached down to the underserved areas. And then secondly, it also underscores the fact that there has to be cybersecurity maturity for developing countries. UNECA has come up with a model cybersecurity law that we can adapt even to customize our own local laws. And we had from EU and from UK, the efforts they also made in online safety. So they need to adapt this thing and make a near-perfect law to guide the citizens’ online activities.

Jorge Cancio: Thank you so much, Jimson. So I think it’s time now to wrap up this session. We will have a last segment of, let’s say, interim final messages because this is an ongoing conversation about the path forward with WISC-I plus 20, with the IGF and with how we work together. And I would like to start with Fabrizia, if that is OK for you, and then come gently over until Minister Tung to have the last word.

Fabrizia Benini: Thank you. Well, my first last word and thought is to thank the Norwegian government for the organization of the IGF. You had… You had very little time to put it together and the result has been magnificent. The venues are fantastic and really the organization has been… completely faultless, so thank you. On the WISOs process, we’ve already had the opportunity to reiterate our very strong commitment to it, strong commitment to the multi-stakeholder model that needs to be effective, inclusive and actionable. Participation, the IGF itself that needs robust foundations, and a coherence between the different actions that we take in the WISOs with the SDGs that are coming up for review in 2030 and with the GDC. We can work together this path. It might not be completely straightforward sometimes, but that’s the beauty of having different voices, and I think there is a real benefit in world terms for us to engage in this pioneer, continue this pioneer experiment. Thank you.

Jorge Cancio: Thank you so much, Fabrizia. Jimson.

Jimson Olufuye: Yeah, I will also say plus one to the expression of appreciation to our host for a very splendid IGF 2025. Thank you very much. Well, the WISOs has come to stay, and we are doing a review, and we’re expecting that the IGF will be renewed or made permanent, and we’re also hoping that all the stakeholder too will perform their own roles and responsibility. But most importantly, with regards to developing countries and underdeveloped countries, we need to also take it more seriously and deepen the conversation within our nationals, even up to sub-national, because there’s a need for us to catch up, to leapfrog, because we’re looking at internet penetration is 39% to 40%, while the world average is about 60%. So there’s a lot to be done. We need to bring in all the stakeholders so that we can fast-track the process of adoption, awareness, and even utilization of these tools. And finally, I want to really thank in advance our countries, because countries have never failed to host IGF. Thanking all the governments that are taking it up. So, and appreciating the leadership role they’re playing in ensuring that IGF is sustained. So, thanking them in advance.

Jorge Cancio: Thank you so much, Jimson, Kurtis.

Kurtis Lindqvist: I also like to thank the hosts for this successful and fantastic week you allowed us to have here in Norway. And after this week of contributing, listening and engaging here at the IGF, I think one thing is very clear, and that is, we’re not simply talking about the future, we’re actually shaping the foundation of the future. And the Internet’s greatest strength is really its ability to coordinate at this phenomenal global scale without a centralized control. It’s something that’s very rare, it’s essential, and it’s worth protecting. We at ICANN, we’re not regulators, but we’re stewards. We look after the unique identifiers and the technical components that makes the Internet keep working. The practical stakeholder-driven collaboration that we model is how governance must evolve. And the IGF is really where this governance and coordination happens in practice today. And it must remain open and global representative space that we have for this digital governance. We heard some questions and discussions earlier, let’s not underestimate what it takes to make this possible. But we really must give it the support it needs and keep doing what only the IGF can do.

Jorge Cancio: Thank you, Kurtis. Baroness Jones.

Maggie Jones: So I would like to echo all the points that have been made. Thank you so much to our hosts. It’s been a fantastic event, beautifully organized, as we would expect from the Norwegians. And yes, I think it’s been a very, very successful event. And I would just say that it’s really, really important that a very wide group of stakeholders contribute to the WSIS review because we want to demonstrate what we really represent here and it is a very unique group of people, so everybody from governments, businesses, civil societies, technical experts and academics. In order for this to continue to play the important role that it does, I think that everybody, the widest group of people need to participate in the review, so I urge everybody to contribute.

Jorge Cancio: Thank you so much Baroness. Minister Tung, do you have the final words?

Karianne Tung: Thank you everyone for really kind words about Norway hosting the IGF. I believe it has been a success, but it wouldn’t have been without you, all the participants, all the stakeholders. That is really why this is an amazing event, where we can sit down and talk to each other instead of about each other, and I really appreciate that. I think during the last, or the past 20 years, we have shown that you can trust the IGF and multi-stakeholder model. That’s why it’s important for Norway and it is Norway’s point of view that the IGF should have a strength mandate, that it should be permanent, and that we are able to integrate more the different processes that are going on. So I really look forward to meet you all at the next IGF, and Norway will be happy to share our experience also with hosting the IGF, or whatever countries up next for hosting the IGF. So thank you very much everyone for being here.

Jorge Cancio: Thank you so much Minister Tunge, and it’s really wonderful, and when the expectations are so high, and the expectations were very high for you, for the Norwegians, it’s really wonderful that everything is so perfect. Thank you so much. I don’t have too much to recap. I look forward to the summaries that are being prepared by the IGF Secretariat together with Diplo Foundation. I think that’s also worthwhile looking into the transcript of both this morning’s session, which was very rich and engaging with the co-facilitators and with the Undersecretary General. And of course, all the inputs you gave during this very engaging discussion and the ones we received from the audience, both here and online, I think are worth looking them over, seeing where are more solutions, more common ground fields, what we have to really address, where we have to still really force our imagination to come to good solutions. But with this, I would like to thank our panel, give them a warm round of applause. And also thank our audience. I think with this, this session is adjourned. Thank you so much. Thank you.

Agreement points

Multi-stakeholder approach must be preserved and strengthened

Speakers

– Suela Janina
– Maggie Jones
– Kurtis Lindqvist
– Thomas Schneider
– Markus Kummer

Arguments

Multi-stakeholder approach and engagement will be central in the future negotiations that we are taking for the review of the process

The fact is that WSIS, our multi-stakeholder engagement, is very unique in this experience. And I think that’s one of our great strengths

The IGF strength lies in what it enables, the open engagement across stakeholder groups without the pressure to negotiate or formulize the outcomes

The UN agencies and the UN system has opened up, has opened up its arms for cooperation quite significantly over this time

We have come a long way since, and I would like to thank the co-facilitators for their commitment to a multi-stakeholder approach

Summary

There is strong consensus that the multi-stakeholder approach is fundamental to WSIS and IGF success and must be maintained and strengthened in future processes

Topics

Human rights principles

Avoid duplication between WSIS, GDC, and other UN processes while promoting synergies

Speakers

– Ekitela Lokaale
– Karianne Tung
– Maggie Jones
– Fabrizia Benini

Arguments

Stakeholders are saying, please don’t duplicate. Try to find synergies between the two processes

We should avoid parallel processes because it is an issue of capacity to be a part of different processes going on at the same time about the same thing

We genuinely want to reach out to develop new global norms about the standards that we can expect in terms of the technology companies

We need to avoid duplication, we need to increase synergies that need to be mutually reinforcing

Summary

All speakers agree on the critical need to avoid duplicating efforts across different UN digital processes while creating meaningful synergies and coordination

Topics

Legal and regulatory

IGF should be strengthened with permanent mandate and better funding

Speakers

– Karianne Tung
– Maggie Jones
– Kurtis Lindqvist

Arguments

For Norway, it is important that we are able to give IGF a permanent mandate. That is a key priority

Giving it a permanent mandate, which is one of our themes this morning, I think is absolutely critical

We really must give it the support it needs and keep doing what only the IGF can do

Summary

There is clear consensus that the IGF needs a permanent mandate and more predictable funding to continue its valuable work effectively

Topics

Legal and regulatory

WSIS action lines remain relevant and technology-neutral for addressing emerging challenges

Speakers

– Jimson Olufuye
– Karianne Tung
– Maggie Jones

Arguments

The 11 WSIS Action Lines covered anything that could come up. We don’t really need any new structural changes

The action lines are broad, they are tech neutral, I believe that is important, because we don’t know what kind of technology that hits us tomorrow

The approach that was taken, which is that we are tech neutral in a sense, that we address all of the tech challenges, I think is the right one

Summary

Speakers agree that the existing WSIS action lines are sufficiently broad and technology-neutral to address emerging technologies like AI without requiring structural changes

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Infrastructure

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers advocate for WSIS as the leading framework with structured implementation approaches that integrate GDC commitments through coordinated roadmaps

Speakers

– Karianne Tung
– Fabrizia Benini

Arguments

I believe that the WSIS should be the lead process for digital cooperation where the GDC can be connected more towards and implemented together with the WSIS process

We think that there is room for the action line facilitators together with the relevant bodies in the UN to set out actionable roadmaps that will track the implementation and the progress

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Both speakers highlight persistent digital divides as major challenges requiring urgent attention, with specific focus on gender gaps and developing country connectivity

Speakers

– Maggie Jones
– Jimson Olufuye

Arguments

The gender divide remains a huge challenge for us. Globally there were 244 million more men than women using the internet in 2023

With regards to developing countries and underdeveloped countries, we need to take it more seriously because we’re looking at internet penetration is 39% to 40%, while the world average is about 60%

Topics

Development | Digital access | Gender rights online

Both speakers emphasize that the IGF ecosystem extends far beyond the annual meeting, with national/regional IGFs and ongoing activities being crucial components

Speakers

– Kurtis Lindqvist
– Markus Kummer

Arguments

The national regional IGFs continue to connect the global and local governance conversations into each other

The IGF is more than just an annual meeting. It’s a process with many intersessional activities and the importance of the NRIs could not be overemphasized

Topics

Human rights principles | Legal and regulatory

Unexpected consensus

Technology companies need to do more to address harmful content and algorithms

Speakers

– Karianne Tung
– Maggie Jones
– Audience

Arguments

We need the tech companies to do more. They are not doing enough, so we need them to do more

We have got very good dialogue going with the tech companies to ensure that that’s being implemented properly

We have seen global cooperations on this stage and they are usually part of the problems we face, but are not always an active part of the solutions

Explanation

Unexpected consensus emerged across government representatives and civil society that technology companies bear significant responsibility for addressing online harms and need to be more actively engaged in solutions, moving beyond traditional regulatory approaches

Topics

Cybersecurity | Children rights | Human rights principles

Environmental impact of ICT needs urgent attention

Speakers

– Maggie Jones

Arguments

Another issue we need to address is the environmental impact of information and communication technologies and all of the global greenhouse gas emissions that that challenge raises

Explanation

The explicit mention of environmental concerns related to ICT infrastructure was unexpected in a digital governance discussion, showing growing awareness of sustainability issues in the digital realm

Topics

Development | Sustainable development

Overall assessment

Summary

Strong consensus exists on preserving multi-stakeholder approaches, avoiding process duplication, strengthening IGF with permanent mandate, and maintaining technology-neutral WSIS action lines. Agreement also emerged on addressing digital divides and the need for better coordination between processes.

Consensus level

High level of consensus with constructive alignment on fundamental principles and practical next steps. The convergence suggests strong foundation for successful WSIS Plus 20 negotiations, though implementation details and resource allocation may require further discussion.

Different viewpoints

Relationship between WSIS and Global Digital Compact

Speakers

– Ekitela Lokaale
– Karianne Tung

Arguments

On one hand, there are those who feel that WSIS should remain the overarching framework and that all the other proposals in the GDC be implemented under the WSIS architecture. Then there are also those who say, let the two processes don’t duplicate but follow what is in WSIS and let the processes under GDC run their course.

I believe that the WSIS should be the lead process for digital cooperation where the GDC can be connected more towards and implemented together with the WSIS process.

Summary

While Ekitela Lokaale presents diverse stakeholder views on whether WSIS should be the overarching framework or run parallel to GDC, Minister Tung takes a clear position that WSIS should be the lead process with GDC integrated within it.

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Approach to updating WSIS action lines

Speakers

– Ekitela Lokaale
– Jimson Olufuye

Arguments

There are those who advance this proposal, they are wide enough. They can accommodate these emerging technologies. So there is no need to touch them. There is a school of thought that says let’s update the WSIS action lines. So by updating of necessity, it means you have to touch them somewhat. Then there are those who say expand the WSIS action lines.

We don’t really need any new structural changes. Let’s sustain what we have. The IGF is brilliant. Let’s bring in the Sao Paulo Multistakeholder Guideline. Let’s do it better, and as such, we can tackle any emerging challenges appropriately.

Summary

Ekitela Lokaale presents three different stakeholder approaches to action lines (keep as-is, update, or expand), while Jimson Olufuye firmly advocates for no structural changes and maintaining the current framework.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Infrastructure

Unexpected differences

Scope of multi-stakeholder engagement challenges

Speakers

– Jimson Olufuye
– Audience

Arguments

The major challenge I see is to get our national government to be involved, to involve all of us, all the stakeholders in the conversation. We are not in the room to negotiate.

How can we preach to those who are already converts? We have to bring them to the table. We have to take all of this out of the IGF to other places.

Explanation

While both identify inclusivity challenges, Jimson focuses on getting existing stakeholders into government processes, while the audience member argues for reaching entirely new audiences outside the current IGF community. This represents a fundamental difference in approach to expanding participation.

Topics

Human rights principles | Legal and regulatory

Overall assessment

Summary

The main areas of disagreement center on institutional relationships (WSIS-GDC integration), structural changes to action lines, and approaches to strengthening IGF outputs. Most disagreements are about methods rather than fundamental goals.

Disagreement level

Low to moderate disagreement level. Most speakers share common goals around multi-stakeholder engagement, avoiding duplication, and strengthening digital governance, but differ on implementation approaches. The disagreements are constructive and focused on ‘how’ rather than ‘whether’ to achieve shared objectives. This suggests good potential for finding compromise solutions in the WSIS Plus 20 process.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers advocate for WSIS as the leading framework with structured implementation approaches that integrate GDC commitments through coordinated roadmaps

Speakers

– Karianne Tung
– Fabrizia Benini

Arguments

I believe that the WSIS should be the lead process for digital cooperation where the GDC can be connected more towards and implemented together with the WSIS process

We think that there is room for the action line facilitators together with the relevant bodies in the UN to set out actionable roadmaps that will track the implementation and the progress

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Both speakers highlight persistent digital divides as major challenges requiring urgent attention, with specific focus on gender gaps and developing country connectivity

Speakers

– Maggie Jones
– Jimson Olufuye

Arguments

The gender divide remains a huge challenge for us. Globally there were 244 million more men than women using the internet in 2023

With regards to developing countries and underdeveloped countries, we need to take it more seriously because we’re looking at internet penetration is 39% to 40%, while the world average is about 60%

Topics

Development | Digital access | Gender rights online

Both speakers emphasize that the IGF ecosystem extends far beyond the annual meeting, with national/regional IGFs and ongoing activities being crucial components

Speakers

– Kurtis Lindqvist
– Markus Kummer

Arguments

The national regional IGFs continue to connect the global and local governance conversations into each other

The IGF is more than just an annual meeting. It’s a process with many intersessional activities and the importance of the NRIs could not be overemphasized

Topics

Human rights principles | Legal and regulatory

Key takeaways

WSIS Plus 20 review should preserve the foundational vision (people-centered, inclusive, development-oriented) while adapting to new technologies like AI and digital public infrastructure

Strong convergence exists on maintaining multi-stakeholder approach as central to WSIS and IGF processes

IGF has demonstrated success over 20 years, connecting 5+ billion people online and enabling economic growth through its open, non-binding dialogue model

Technology-neutral WSIS action lines can accommodate emerging technologies without requiring structural changes, just contextualization

Digital divide persists with significant gaps between developed and developing countries (39-40% vs 60% average internet penetration)

Integration and coordination between WSIS, Global Digital Compact, and SDGs is essential to avoid duplication while promoting synergies

National and regional IGFs (176 total) play vital connecting role between global and local digital governance

Online safety challenges, especially protecting children from harmful algorithms and content, require coordinated government regulation and tech company responsibility

Resolutions and action items

Co-facilitators to establish informal multi-stakeholder sounding board with members from MAG and leadership panel for enhanced communication

Written inputs to elements paper due July 15th to inform zero draft outcome document for negotiations

Joint session between governments and non-government stakeholders planned for end of July

Second preparatory consultation meeting scheduled for mid-October

Proposal for joint implementation roadmaps tracking progress across WSIS action lines, SDGs, and GDC commitments to be considered

Stakeholders urged to contribute to WSIS Plus 20 review process through multiple channels including written submissions

National governments encouraged to involve all stakeholders in their delegations and decision-making processes

IGF Secretariat and Diplo Foundation to prepare summaries and transcripts of discussions for further reference

Unresolved issues

Relationship between WSIS and Global Digital Compact remains contentious with diverse views on whether WSIS should be overarching framework or processes should run in parallel

Future of IGF mandate (permanent vs. extended) still under negotiation

Funding mechanisms for IGF remain unpredictable and inadequate

How to effectively integrate multi-stakeholder inputs into national-level policy implementation

Specific mechanisms for avoiding duplication while ensuring coordination across multiple UN digital processes

How to meaningfully include developing countries and ensure their voices are heard in global digital governance

Concrete measures to address the gender digital divide (244 million more men than women online)

Balancing open internet principles with need for regulation to address online harms and protect children

How to engage broader stakeholder participation beyond those already committed to digital governance discussions

Suggested compromises

WSIS to serve as lead process for digital cooperation with GDC being implemented within WSIS framework rather than as separate parallel process

Strengthen IGF outputs and reporting mechanisms while maintaining non-binding, dialogue-focused nature

Update and contextualize existing WSIS action lines for new technologies rather than creating entirely new structures

Use technology-neutral approach in action lines to accommodate future emerging technologies

Create joint implementation roadmaps that map WSIS action lines to SDGs and GDC commitments to ensure coherence

Establish better coordination through UN Group on Information Society and Office for Digital and Emerging Technologies

Strengthen national and regional IGFs as connecting tissue between global and local governance while maintaining global IGF as central forum

Combine government regulation, tech company responsibility, and international cooperation to address online safety challenges

The IGF is a sandbox process for the multilateral environment. It is a way to alleviate some of the constraints regarding the participation of non-governmental stakeholders, it’s a way to experiment and also to alleviate the constraints for putting something on the agenda… The IGF is this exploratory space that allows to put agenda items early on and save at least three or four years in addressing them.

Speaker

Bertrand de La Chapelle

Reason

This comment reframes the IGF’s role from just a discussion forum to a strategic governance innovation tool. The ‘sandbox’ metaphor is particularly powerful as it suggests a safe space for experimentation that feeds into formal multilateral processes. The quantification of ‘saving 3-4 years’ adds concrete value to what might otherwise be seen as just talk.

Impact

This comment elevated the discussion from operational concerns about the IGF’s future to strategic thinking about its unique value proposition in global governance. It provided intellectual ammunition for those arguing for the IGF’s permanent mandate by articulating a clear functional role that no other institution fills.

We risk losing one of these few global spaces where we can have this meaningful digital cooperation… If we replace this model with something that’s more rigid or politicized, we risk losing one of these few global spaces where we can have this meaningful digital cooperation.

Speaker

Kurtis Lindqvist

Reason

This comment introduces urgency and stakes to the discussion by framing the WSIS+20 review as potentially existential for the current model. It shifts from celebrating achievements to acknowledging vulnerability, suggesting that success shouldn’t be taken for granted.

Impact

This warning about fragility created a more serious tone in the discussion and prompted other speakers to emphasize the need for active defense of the multistakeholder model. It moved the conversation from complacency about past success to strategic thinking about preservation and strengthening.

How can we preach to those who are already converts? We have to bring them to the table… We have to take all of this out of the IGF to other places… if we don’t bring the others in, in a level of advocacy in our own countries, we can’t get anywhere.

Speaker

Eric (from audience)

Reason

This comment challenges the fundamental assumption of the IGF community about its own effectiveness. It suggests that the community may be operating in an echo chamber and needs to engage beyond its traditional boundaries. The religious metaphor of ‘preaching to converts’ is particularly striking.

Impact

This intervention shifted the discussion from internal processes and structures to external engagement and political reality. It prompted several panelists to acknowledge the challenge of bringing non-traditional stakeholders into the conversation and influenced subsequent discussions about national-level engagement.

There is a proposal that we have a joint implementation plan for the GDC and WSIS, for example. So, that’s an innovative idea which we are willing to put before stakeholders.

Speaker

Ekitela Lokaale (Co-facilitator)

Reason

This comment introduces a concrete mechanism for addressing the persistent concern about duplication and fragmentation between different UN digital processes. It moves from abstract calls for coordination to a specific institutional innovation.

Impact

This proposal became a focal point for subsequent discussions about coordination and was picked up by multiple speakers as a promising approach. It shifted the conversation from identifying problems to exploring solutions and gave participants something concrete to rally around.

We are hearing from the stakeholders, for example, the need for us to ground the WSIS Plus 20 outcome review in the original WSIS vision… but we should also reflect some of the technological advancements that have happened over the last two decades… there is a clear recognition that even as we ground the review in the original WSIS vision… we should also reflect some of the technological advancements.

Speaker

Ekitela Lokaale (Co-facilitator)

Reason

This comment articulates the central tension of the WSIS+20 process: how to maintain foundational principles while adapting to technological change. It demonstrates sophisticated listening to stakeholder input and frames the challenge as both/and rather than either/or.

Impact

This framing helped structure much of the subsequent discussion around the balance between continuity and change. It provided a framework that allowed different stakeholders to see their concerns reflected while acknowledging the need for evolution.

The internet’s greatest strength is really its ability to coordinate at this phenomenal global scale without a centralized control. It’s something that’s very rare, it’s essential, and it’s worth protecting… what worries me is that it’s been so successful we started taking it for granted.

Speaker

Kurtis Lindqvist

Reason

This comment identifies a paradox of success – that the very effectiveness of the current system makes it vulnerable because people stop actively defending it. It connects technical architecture principles to governance philosophy in a compelling way.

Impact

This observation about taking success for granted resonated throughout the discussion and prompted other speakers to emphasize the need for active engagement and advocacy. It added philosophical depth to practical discussions about institutional arrangements.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally shaped the discussion by introducing strategic frameworks, acknowledging vulnerabilities, and challenging assumptions. Bertrand de La Chapelle’s ‘sandbox’ metaphor provided a new way to understand the IGF’s value, while Kurtis Lindqvist’s warnings about taking success for granted created urgency around preservation efforts. The audience intervention about ‘preaching to converts’ forced uncomfortable but necessary reflection on the community’s insularity. The co-facilitators’ comments about joint implementation plans and balancing continuity with change provided concrete pathways forward. Together, these interventions elevated the discussion from operational details to strategic thinking about governance innovation, institutional vulnerability, and the need for broader political engagement. They created a more nuanced understanding of both the achievements and challenges facing the WSIS framework, ultimately producing a more sophisticated and actionable conversation about the path forward.

How to achieve coherence between WSIS and the Global Digital Compact without duplication

Speaker

Ekitela Lokaale and multiple participants

Explanation

There are diverse views on whether WSIS should remain the overarching framework with GDC implemented under it, or whether the two processes should run parallel courses without duplication

Whether to update, expand, or leave unchanged the WSIS action lines

Speaker

Ekitela Lokaale

Explanation

Different schools of thought exist on how to address emerging technologies – some say action lines are broad enough, others want updates or expansion

What kind of IGF is needed for the next 10-20 years and beyond

Speaker

Suela Janina

Explanation

Ideas range from extending the mandate to making it permanent, rebranding the name, and strengthening it to include new and emerging technologies

How to develop a joint implementation plan for GDC and WSIS

Speaker

Ekitela Lokaale

Explanation

This was mentioned as an innovative idea being considered to bring coherence between the two processes

How to better integrate multi-stakeholder inputs at IGF into WSIS follow-up mechanisms, especially at national level

Speaker

Segun Omolosho (online participant)

Explanation

This addresses the challenge of ensuring that discussions and outcomes from IGF translate into meaningful action at national levels

What strategies can be implemented to enhance participation of youth and women in IGF and WSIS processes

Speaker

Musa Maigari (online participant)

Explanation

This addresses inclusivity concerns and the need to engage underrepresented groups more effectively

How to strengthen the voice and participation of small and medium enterprises and open source solutions in IGF and WSIS

Speaker

Rian Duarte

Explanation

SMEs and open source solutions are often part of problems but not always active in solutions, especially from the Global South

How to involve more governments in WSIS discussions beyond just a few engaged ones

Speaker

Raul Echeverria

Explanation

Many governments are not aware of ongoing negotiations, and most involvement comes from missions rather than capitals

How IGF can address challenges posed by artificial intelligence and other disruptive technologies

Speaker

Musa Maigari (online participant)

Explanation

While AI has been discussed at IGF for years, the rapid evolution requires ongoing attention to both opportunities and risks

How to provide citizens the same protection online as they have in the physical world

Speaker

Bastiaan Winkel

Explanation

Addresses the dark sides of internet including online hate speech, harmful content, and youth addiction to social media platforms

What measures is IGF taking to promote full inclusion of Global South countries, particularly in Africa

Speaker

Remote hub participant from Benin

Explanation

Some regions are excluded from both challenges and benefits of technological evolution

How to develop actionable roadmaps that track implementation and progress of WSIS action lines, SDG goals, and GDC commitments

Speaker

Fabrizia Benini

Explanation

Need for clear understanding of current status and required actions to avoid duplication and increase coordination

How to ensure succession planning for technical pioneers and maintain core infrastructure

Speaker

Silvia Cadena

Explanation

Important to maintain systems that enabled growth while integrating next generation without breaking existing functionality

How to create incentives for countries to participate in development of global open standards

Speaker

Silvia Cadena

Explanation

Need to move beyond being just adopters of technology to active participants in standard development

Summary

This discussion focused on governance responses and challenges related to the proliferation of sexual deepfakes targeting teenagers across the internet. The panel examined how AI tools designed to create deepfake images have dramatically increased, with nearly 35,000 AI models available for public download on one platform, many specifically marketed for generating non-consensual intimate imagery. The speakers presented case studies from South Korea, where hundreds of secret Telegram chat rooms were discovered sharing deepfake sexual videos of students, affecting over 500 schools and shocking the entire country.

Korean representatives explained that deepfake-related sex crimes increased seven-fold from 156 cases in 2021 to 1,202 cases in 2024, with most perpetrators being teenagers themselves who often view the activity as harmless fun rather than serious criminal behavior. The Korean government responded with educational guidebooks for different age groups and developed technical innovations including a Korean deepfake dataset achieving 96% detection accuracy and specialized tools to identify content involving minors. However, the phenomenon of “platform hopping” emerged as perpetrators shifted from Telegram to other platforms to avoid detection.

Education expert Janice Richardson emphasized the need for cross-platform collaboration and proper teacher training, highlighting successful programs in France, the Netherlands, and Morocco that incorporate digital citizenship education. Brazilian representative Juliana Cunha reported a historic spike in child sexual abuse material reports, with 90% involving Telegram, and stressed that this issue reflects broader systemic gender inequalities requiring cultural prevention measures beyond legal responses. Participants agreed that combating sexual deepfakes requires coordinated multi-stakeholder approaches combining legal frameworks, educational initiatives, technical solutions, and cultural change to protect teenagers globally.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **The Scale and Impact of AI-Generated Sexual Deepfakes Targeting Teens**: The discussion highlighted alarming statistics, particularly from South Korea where over 500 schools were affected by deepfake videos, with cases rising from 156 in 2021 to 1,202 in 2024. The speakers emphasized how easily accessible AI tools have democratized the creation of non-consensual intimate imagery, with many perpetrators being teenagers themselves who often view it as “just for fun.”

– **Legal and Regulatory Challenges Across Jurisdictions**: Panelists discussed the inadequacy of current legal frameworks to address deepfake crimes, noting issues with cross-border enforcement, the difficulty of prosecuting cases involving modified images, and the need for stronger international cooperation. The conversation highlighted how perpetrators can easily bypass restrictions using VPNs and platform-hopping techniques.

– **Educational and Cultural Prevention Strategies**: The discussion emphasized the critical need for comprehensive digital literacy education, starting from early childhood, that goes beyond technical awareness to address underlying cultural issues around gender-based violence and consent. Speakers shared innovative approaches including magician-delivered presentations, peer education programs, and multi-stakeholder curriculum development.

– **Platform Responsibility and Technical Solutions**: The conversation addressed the role of tech companies in both enabling and preventing harm, discussing detection technologies, content moderation challenges on encrypted platforms like Telegram, and the need for proactive measures to identify and remove harmful content before it spreads widely.

– **Multi-Stakeholder Collaboration and Victim Support**: Panelists stressed the importance of coordinated responses involving governments, schools, tech companies, NGOs, and communities, while emphasizing the need for trauma-informed support systems for victims and the importance of listening to young people’s perspectives in developing solutions.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to examine governance responses and challenges related to AI-generated sexual deepfakes targeting teenagers from multiple stakeholder perspectives. The workshop sought to identify effective legal and educational measures, explore collaboration strategies for incorporating digital literacy into school curricula, and develop proactive policies to prevent harm against teenagers globally.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a serious, urgent, and collaborative tone throughout. Speakers demonstrated deep concern about the rapidly escalating problem while remaining solution-focused and constructive. The tone was professional yet passionate, with participants sharing both alarming statistics and innovative approaches. There was a consistent emphasis on the need for immediate action combined with long-term cultural change, and the conversation remained respectful and inclusive of diverse international perspectives and expertise levels.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Kenneth Leung** – Netmission Board Advisor, Asia Pacific Policy Observatory advisor, workshop moderator from the UK

– **Ji Won Oh** – Netmission Ambassador, holds bachelor’s degree in Latin American Studies and Political Science and Master’s degree in Political Science in International Relations, providing youth perspective

– **Yi Teng Au** – Netmission Ambassador from technical community, majors in Computer Science, Microsoft Certified AI Engineer

– **Janice Richardson** – Educator with 50+ years experience across multiple countries (Australia, Europe, Africa), sits on Safety Advisory Board of META and Snapchat, partner in European Commission and Council of Europe projects focusing on AI impacts on education

– **Juliana Cunha** – From Safer Nets Brazil, holds bachelor’s degree in psychology and master’s degree in culture and society, coordinates National Helpline for Online Safety, NGO perspective

– **Andrew Campling** – Trustee with the Internet Watch Foundation

– **Robbert Hoving** – From Safer Internet Centre in the Netherlands and InHope

– **Maciej Gron** – From Polish Research Institute NASK and hotline dujournet.pl, lawyer

– **Torsten Krause** – Affiliated with Digital Opportunities Foundation based in Germany

– **Yuri Bokovoy** – From Finnish Green Party

– **Participant** – Multiple unidentified participants with various questions and comments

**Additional speakers:**

– **Mariana** – Colombian, works at DataSphere Initiative, leads Youth for a Data Future Project

– **Frances** – Part of Youthdig organization

– **Claire** – Student from Hong Kong

– **Sana** – From NetMission

# Comprehensive Report: Governance Responses to Sexual Deepfakes Targeting Teenagers

## Executive Summary

This international workshop brought together experts, policymakers, educators, and youth representatives to examine the escalating crisis of AI-generated sexual deepfakes targeting teenagers. The discussion centered on alarming data from South Korea, where deepfake-related sex crimes increased seven-fold from 156 cases in 2021 to 1,202 cases in 2024, affecting over 500 schools. Supporting perspectives from Brazil and Europe revealed this as a global phenomenon requiring coordinated responses. The panel emphasized that effective solutions must address both immediate technical and legal challenges while tackling underlying cultural factors, particularly gender-based violence and inequality.

## Global Scale of the Problem

### The Korean Crisis

**Ji Won Oh** and **Yi Teng Au** presented comprehensive data on South Korea’s deepfake crisis, where hundreds of secret Telegram chat rooms shared deepfake sexual videos of students across more than 500 schools nationwide. The seven-fold increase in deepfake-related crimes shocked the country and prompted urgent government action.

Particularly concerning was the attitude of perpetrators, with 54% claiming they created deepfake content “for fun.” **Ji Won Oh** noted that “many students don’t care. Because they think it’s just funny and laugh and share the videos,” highlighting a fundamental disconnect between the severe impact on victims and perpetrators’ casual attitudes.

### International Perspectives

**Juliana Cunha** from Safer Nets Brazil reported a historic spike in child sexual abuse material reports in 2023, with AI-generated content as a key factor. She emphasized that “this problem already affected large schools in Brazil, especially private schools, with several cases being reported by media outlets.” Particularly troubling was the finding that 90% of messaging app reports involved Telegram.

**Janice Richardson** provided European and African context, noting reporting challenges in countries like Morocco and Tunisia due to cultural factors around shame and humiliation. She emphasized that “reporting challenges exist due to humiliation, especially in countries like Morocco and Tunisia.”

## Root Causes and Systemic Challenges

### Cultural and Gender Dimensions

A crucial insight emerged regarding the cultural roots of the problem. **Juliana Cunha** argued that “the misuse of AI to create sexualized images of peers is not a tech issue or a legal gap. It’s a reflection of broader systemic gender inequalities. That’s why prevention must also be cultural.”

This reframed the discussion from viewing deepfakes as merely a technological problem to understanding them as manifestations of deeper cultural attitudes about gender, consent, and power dynamics.

### Technical Accessibility

The discussion revealed concerning ease of access to harmful AI tools. **Yi Teng Au** noted that “accessibility of AI tools like stable diffusion makes content creation too easy despite safeguards.” **Robbert Hoving** highlighted that “search engines easily provide access to deepfake creation apps when searched.”

### Legal Framework Gaps

Multiple speakers identified significant gaps in current legal frameworks. **Yi Teng Au** explained that “laws against deepfakes are unclear because modified images create legal ambiguity about prosecution.” **Kenneth Leung** noted jurisdictional challenges, while **Maciej Gron** highlighted how legal systems struggle with situations involving both child victims and perpetrators.

### Platform Governance Challenges

**Andrew Campling** from the Internet Watch Foundation emphasized that “end-to-end encrypted messaging services present biggest challenge for blocking CSAM sharing.” The phenomenon of “platform hopping,” where perpetrators shift between platforms to avoid detection, further complicates enforcement efforts.

## Current Responses and Solutions

### Educational Innovations

The discussion showcased several innovative educational approaches:

**South Korea**: The Ministry of Education published five guidebooks tailored to different age groups addressing deepfakes.

**Brazil**: **Juliana Cunha** described creating educational resources combining legal guidance with real-life cases and interactive activities, emphasizing practical, relatable content.

**International Models**: **Janice Richardson** shared successful approaches including Morocco’s cascade training model with resource persons in schools, the Netherlands’ six-week transition courses, and Scandinavian countries using magicians to deliver educational content.

### Technical Developments

South Korea has pioneered several technical solutions. **Yi Teng Au** described the creation of a Korean DeepFake dataset that achieved 96% accuracy in detecting altered videos, and Seoul Metropolitan Government’s development of specialized detection tools targeting content involving minors.

### Multi-Stakeholder Initiatives

**Andrew Campling** described the Internet Watch Foundation’s anonymous reporting systems for illegal images including AI-generated content. Various speakers emphasized successful partnerships between government agencies, schools, and civil society organizations.

## Key Debates and Perspectives

### Youth-Centered Approaches

A significant theme was the importance of centering young people’s voices. **Juliana Cunha** emphasized that “our core belief is the best way to protect children is by listening to them. This project challenged the usual top-down approach. Instead of responding with moral panic or punitive measures, we are asking how do teens actually experience this? What do they think would help?”

**Janice Richardson** noted that “young people also turn to me and say, you should be educating the adults about this because very often, it’s them, the ones that are suffering, the ones that are doing this, and the ones that don’t have the opportunity to tackle it.”

### Regulatory Tensions

Disagreement emerged around regulatory strategies. **Frances** from Youthdig advocated for “a real crackdown on these kind of applications,” while others emphasized the complexity of enforcement and need for nuanced approaches.

**Yuri Bokovoy** raised concerns that “regulations protecting children risk misuse by authoritarian governments to silence free speech,” highlighting the delicate balance required in crafting effective legislation.

### Privacy Versus Protection

Tension emerged between privacy rights and child protection, particularly regarding encrypted communications. **Torsten Krause** noted that the European Union has been “discussing compromising privacy to detect CSAM in encrypted environments for three years” without resolution.

### Industry Accountability

**Janice Richardson** challenged technological priorities: “If we’re so clever with technology, why can’t we make something that when once we’ve put an image online, it becomes indelible, it becomes unchangeable. I’d like more efforts from the tech industry.”

## Areas of Consensus and Collaboration Needs

### Multi-Stakeholder Imperative

There was unanimous agreement that addressing sexual deepfakes requires coordinated efforts across sectors. **Juliana Cunha** emphasized that a “coordinated response needed bringing together tech companies, public institutions, society and academia.”

### Collaboration Gaps

**Janice Richardson** identified significant gaps: “cross-platform collaboration lacking with companies needing to share knowledge more effectively” and “industry should partner with education in curriculum development rather than just providing tools.”

### International Action

Multiple speakers called for enhanced international coordination. **Janice Richardson** emphasized that “international action needed with people joining together to pressure search engines and platforms.”

## Future Directions and Recommendations

### Immediate Actions

– Create international coalitions to pressure search engines to remove access to deepfake creation apps

– Develop anonymous reporting mechanisms to address cultural barriers around shame

– Implement cascade training models with resource teachers in schools

### Medium-term Goals

– Develop detection datasets tailored to local needs, following South Korea’s example

– Strengthen industry accountability measures against products designed to violate rights

– Create comprehensive legal frameworks addressing cases with minor victims and perpetrators

### Long-term Cultural Change

Participants emphasized that sustainable solutions require long-term cultural interventions addressing underlying gender inequalities and attitudes about consent and digital behavior.

## Conclusion

The workshop revealed that addressing sexual deepfakes targeting teenagers requires a fundamental shift from reactive to proactive approaches. The crisis reflects broader systemic inequalities that cannot be addressed through technological or legal solutions alone, but require sustained commitment to cultural change and gender equality.

The strong consensus among international stakeholders provides a foundation for developing comprehensive global strategies, while identified disagreements highlight areas requiring further dialogue. The urgency of the situation, combined with the complexity of effective responses, underscores the need for immediate action on multiple fronts while maintaining focus on long-term prevention through education and cultural transformation.

Most importantly, the conversation emphasized that solutions must be youth-centered, culturally sensitive, and implemented through coordinated international collaboration. The participants’ commitment to continued collaboration provides hope for developing more effective responses to this critical challenge facing young people globally.

Kenneth Leung: Good morning, fellow internet governance practitioners and answers. Glad to see you here in the morning, especially this is the first session of the day. We also have people from outside of this room and all around the world joining us online. So across this hour, we are to examine governance responses and challenges from different sectors, as well as stakeholder perspectives towards the germination of sexual defects across the internet. Dramatic rise. This is what an Oxford Internet Institute study called out on the number of AI tools specifically designed to create deepfake images of identifiable people. This very timely study, formally just published this Monday, unveiled there were nearly 35,000 AI models available for public download on one platform service for generative AI, many of which are even marketed or with the intention to generate NCIIs, non-consensual intimate imagery. The Digital Service of Concern has responded to the Oxford study and is taking action in an exposed manner. And some governments are also taking actions. Take where I’m based as an example, the UK’s 2025 Data Use and Access Act has just become effective last Thursday, with the provision criminalizing the creation and requesting the creation of purported intimate images. However, the additional safeguards only applies to adults as such behaviors, as explained by the government, targeting minors have already been covered by the law. But is that enough? Especially safeguards in the age of generative AI for teenagers, the so-called in-between phase from the innocence of childhood to adulthood. This workshop will directly and exactly be focusing on this with three questions. Number one, what legal and educational measures are most effective in addressing the creation and spread of sexual defects among school-going teens? 2. How can different stakeholders collaborate to ensure that school curricula incorporate digital literacy and awareness about the dangers of sexual defects? 3. What proactive policies can countries implement to anticipate technological changes and prevent sexual defects harms against teenagers globally? My name is Kenneth Leung, Netmission Board Advisor. Joining me today on stage, we have from my left, Ms. Oh Ji Won Oh, Netmission Ambassador, bringing in the youth perspective. Mr. Au, Yi Teng, also a Netmission Ambassador from the technical community. Ms. Janice Richardson inside SA offering views from the education field, and Ms. Juliana Cunha from Safer Nets Brazil, giving insights from an NGO standpoint. And we also have you all. After initial remarks by our speakers, we invite you to chime in with either questions, comments, perspectives, or experience on the topic. You will have two minutes to share your thoughts either in front of this mic or online by using the raise hand function. So, if you have more thoughts and resources that you would like to share after this session, we would love to have them, and please share it on this website, csit.tk, which will be closed after one week of this workshop for us to synthesize the discussion right now and on the comments platform to consolidate into a report next month. So, it’s csit.tk. This platform will be up right now, and I will show it up one more time later. So, hold your thought for now in the first 20 minutes, and let’s hear from Ji Won Oh and Yi Teng on youth and technical perspective in combating sexual defects and safeguarding teens globally. Oh Ji Won Oh holds a bachelor’s degree in Latin America. American Studies and Political Science and a Master’s degree in Political Science in International Relations. Yi Teng is a technical person for the workshop. Yi Teng majors in Computer Science and is a Microsoft Certified AI Engineer. Over to you.

Ji Won Oh: Okay. Hello, everyone. Today, I will talk about how defects affect students’ lives and mental health. So, first, let me explain what a defect is. So, defects are highly realistic video, audio, or image. For example, there are places generated using AI. The technologies that create defects include generated adversarial networks and machine learning. So, with defect tools, people can copy someone’s face and voice without permission. In August last year, a big problem was found in Korean schools. Hundreds of secret chat rooms on Telegram were sharing defect sexual videos. These videos used the real face of students and were shared in elementary, high, and middle school students. So, this shocked the whole country. With technology and social media platforms, anyone can now make a watch a sexual video easily. It’s not just others. Many young people are involved. So, in 2021, there were only 156 policy reports about defect news sex crimes in Korea. But in 2024, the number increased to 1,202 cases. That’s about seven times more than just three years. The most serious problem is this. Most of the people who made these defects are teenagers. So, when students hear the news, will they be scared and think that? They should never do it again? Not sure. Many students now use defect tools. These tools are easy to find online. Even young students can make defects. But here’s the problem. Actually, many students don’t care. Because they think it’s just funny and laugh and share the videos. They don’t think about the pain this causes. So we can think many students feel shocked, scared, and frustrated when they see defects. But victims feel anxious and safe. They also suffer from social stigma. Because of fear, students may lose trust in their students. Defects can hurt someone’s reputation and make some feel helpless. There are four main reasons why defect problems are growing on the screen. There are many reasons why sexual defect crimes continue to happen in Korea. Even after the lockdown, it is still unclear whether the new law is strong enough to stop these crimes. Some people say that more action is needed. Especially to make internet companies act faster. Even when videos are illegal, they can spread for a long time if the removal takes too long. And then some experts say that internet services are not enough. Some experts say that internet service providers must be more responsible. They should block, monitor, and prevent defects contents before it spreads. Also, the law should not only punish the people who make defects. It should also punish those who ask others to create them. Because technology changes so fast, we need laws that are clear, strong, and stable even for new types of defect crimes. Second, this issue is not only about sex crimes. It is part of the bigger problem. Many misinformation affect Korean society. For example, fake videos of politicians and celebrities can halt democracy by spreading lies. That’s why we need a unified national response with the government, school, and companies working together. It’s finally one of the most important causes of lack of education. Many young people don’t really understand how serious these crimes are. Some even think it’s funny or harmless. That’s why schools need to teach students what the fakes are, how dangerous they are, and what would happen in some breaks below. Also, people need better digital literacy, the ability to understand what is real or fake online. We must help young people and elders be smarter and more careful online. So what can we do? So where do fakes can happen? Politicians start investigations. They try to find who made me share the video. A school separated victim and offender. They also give counseling and support to the victims. There are some legal protections, but they are not enough right now. We need more stronger laws to punish the fakes crimes in all economies. So we also need to educate students of race awareness. It is important to support the victims and protect their safety. Okay, thank you so much.

Yi Teng Au: Hi, my name is Yiteng. So to put things into context, here are some numbers I want to share. In South Korea, over 500 schools were affected by deepfake videos and photos, many taken secretly at school or from social media like X and Instagram. A December survey of 2,145 middle and high schoolers showed that 54% said offenders just did it for fun. Other reasons included curiosity or thinking that the consequences were minor, highlighting a lack of awareness about the seriousness. In response, The Ministry of Education published five guidebooks this April. They are tailored to different age groups. There’s a cartoony version for elementary students, and separate editions for middle and high schoolers, teachers and caregivers. The guidebooks cover three key situations. What if I’m the victim? What if someone around me is? And what if something I did caused harm? For the technical folks here, I’ll highlight three innovations. First, the Korean DeepFake dataset, released in 2021, contains 2.73 terabytes of photos and videos. It was created to address the lack of Korean representation in existing datasets. With this, Seoul National University students achieve 96% accuracy in detecting altered videos. Economies without such datasets might consider developing one tailored to their local needs. Second, the Seoul Metropolitan Government developed a detection tool, enhanced in May 2025, targeting illicit content involving minors. It identifies items such as schoolbooks, uniforms, and dolls, and even youth slang, flagging underage content even when faces are invisible. It also scans search terms and drafts multilingual reports, depending on the site’s host country. Lastly, I will share about a phenomenon called platform hopping. Many DeepFake crimes in South Korea began on Telegram. But as the company now actively cooperates with South Korean authorities, on a forum, DC Insight, it was noted that perpetrators have shifted to other platforms, making detection harder due to lower data logging. Thank you. Thank you.

Kenneth Leung: Thank you Jiwon and Yitun for sharing the Korean case, but also what is the Korean government after the case happens. And I just want to also plug here the Asia Pacific Policy Observatory that I advise on. As this particular case, was also heavily debated and spotlighted in one of our latest analyses on how the recent advancement of AI capabilities are transforming online safety and security, which includes challenges in the search of AI-generated child sexual abuse material and AI-powered gender-based violence. So I invite you to take a look at when it’s out this week during IGF, and I’ll be sure to send a link up at that commenting platform, CSIT.tk. So, and now we’ll love to hear from Janice for thoughts in education and the private sector’s perspective. Janice Richardson has been an educator for 50-plus years in half a dozen different countries, including Australia, Europe, and Africa. She sits on the Safety Advisory Board of META and Snapchat, and is a partner in the European Commission and Council of Europe projects focusing on the impacts of AI, misinformation, algorithms, etc. on democracy at all levels of education. Janice, please.

Janice Richardson: Thank you. And first of all, thank you very much to all of those people that I reached out to in the UK, Poland, France, the Netherlands, who gave me information about what are the solutions. But let’s begin with what are the challenges. Schools still have a tendency to post the face, the image of their pupils in sports, in all sorts of activities. And this is the first problem. There are so many images out there. Maybe they were consensual in the beginning, but they can very easily be used when creating deep fakes. Secondly, it’s the availability of tools such as Notify, Undress, Dressed. I don’t know. There are so many out there. And I find it absolutely amazing that they can… still exist on the market. Then, of course, we have the enforcement challenges. We’ve done quite a bit of work in Morocco, training the judiciary area so that they really understand how you collect electronic proof, how you use electronic proof. But not all laws are adapted to this type of proof, and therefore we do need some legal amendments in many countries. The media, the way they report these things, we’ve also started training the media to make them understand that being spectacular may be a good way to get a lot of people to come to your website, but it’s certainly not helping the victims, and it’s actually calling for a lot of copycat behaviour. Then I would cite the lack of cross-platform collaboration. I know there are projects such as Lantern where companies, social media in particular, come together to share knowledge, but the problem with this is that it’s across platforms. It happens in many different layers, and until industry joins up, I think it’s going to be very difficult to find a solution. Industry needs to be a partner with education. It shouldn’t just be there supplying tools or pushing their tools, I could say, onto the education sector and then throwing out bits of education to help young people. It should be there when we’re developing curricula, finding ways together that we can use real-life cases, real-life resources, in a way that will be much Thank you very much for joining us for this evening’s discussion on how to be a bit more impactful for learning. There are, of course, many issues when we look at education systems because few teachers have the training that’s necessary to be able to tackle this issue. We have teachers from every one of the 86 regions of Morocco. They have trained in Cascade. Our aim is to have two teachers who fully understand the issue who receive regular updates in every school so that if there are two teachers in every school, two resource persons, there should be a very fast way to escalate the issues. There are lots of very interesting programs out there. I can cite what’s going on in France, for example, where law students at the Sorbonne University have come together and created a poster competition because they feel if they create the framework for a poster competition, providing little snippets of the law so the public becomes more familiar with the law, then everyone can create posters which will be meaningful and informative and reach the young people who are very much concerned by this issue. I really like something that happens in the Netherlands too. They have lots of television programs, debates, but every school there has the freedom to choose the way that they’re going around this issue. But when a young person goes from elementary school to middle school, they go through a six-week course on health, on technology, on all of this. Thank you very much. So we’re going to start with the issues that can really help them tackle these issues, these problems, because you know the big shift when they go from elementary school through to secondary school. We have a very innovative project running in Scandinavia, thanks to the support of Huawei. I train a magician, and I work with the magician to find tricks that are going to reinforce the messages that I will put into a presentation. Then it’s the magician that delivers in one hour sessions in schools, they deliver what I’ve prepared and what helps them tackle very, very interesting projects in a fun way, so that kids are on board, are interested, but they don’t feel threatened in any way. There’s one big problem I’ve noticed in all of the countries that I work in, and it’s reporting. The humiliation if you have to report that an image of you has been shared, especially in countries like Morocco or Tunisia. So we need to take another approach to reporting. We need to educate children from the cradle to understand, one, the importance of human dignity, two, that when something is not going right, there are ways to say it that are not hurtful, that are not telling tales, there are the right ways to do it. I should then mention the helplines. This has been a super initiative across Europe. I actually got figures from the Netherlands, which shows me that in about 6,500 cases over the past year, we could say that about 5% are about AI-generated sexual fake profiles. and the others. I’m going to talk about the nude profiles, but it’s early days. It’s going to get worse. Therapy, support for the victims. These are all extremely important areas. But when I talk to young people, they say, actually, it’s not the nude profiles that are bothersome. If someone puts a bikini, but then a very sexual stance, is it a nude profile? This is where it really raises issues. If there’s a little bit of clothing, then they think they’re out of the category of a sexual fake profile. Young people also turn to me and say, you should be educating the adults about this because very often, it’s them, the ones that are suffering, the ones that are doing this, and the ones that don’t have the opportunity to tackle it. So I’d say that’s a broad sweep of where I think we should go, of the education projects we should set up. But as many of you know, I believe it’s all about digital citizenship. Understanding that you are a citizen, you have an obligation for all of those around you, regardless of what it is. You also have an obligation to share your knowledge, because if we’re here today, we have knowledge about this subject. So we need to share it, so that it really becomes a grassroots movement to educate everyone on how to tackle this plague. Thank you.

Kenneth Leung: Thank you, Janice. It’s indeed a broad sweep of issues that you’ve mentioned, and lots of good solutions. And you also mentioned about cases from Scandinavia, Morocco, the Netherlands, Tunisia. That also means this issue, sexual defects, are really transcending the border, and it’s a global issue. So this is why we are here, and I would like to now turn the floor to Miss Juliana Cunha for a Latin American perspective and some of the work that you do. Juliana Cunha holds a bachelor’s degree in psychology and a master’s degree in culture and society. At Safer Nets Brazil, Juliana coordinates the National Helpline for Online Safety, interacting with and counseling children, teenagers, and adults about sexting, cyberbullying, sexual extortion, and other risks online. In this regard, she also collaborated with media outlets and advertising bodies to create national and international award-winning campaigns. So after Juliana’s presentation and sharing her perspective, I would invite everyone who wants to share to come up to the floor in front of the mic on this side, or for Zoom participants, please do type in your question and we’ll consolidate and address those questions. So the floor is yours. Over to you. Thank you.

Juliana Cunha: Thank you. Good morning. I’d like just to brief introduction about Safer Nets work. Safer Nets is a 20-year-long nonprofit organization dedicated to establish a multi-stakeholder approach to protect human rights in digital environments. We work as a Safer Internet Center, which coordinates actions in three pillars of online safety. The Brazilian National Cyber Chief Line, a hotline to which users can report anonymously crimes against human rights. The National Web-Based Helpline. which offers one-to-one online conversation about different risks and provides support to children, young people, families and educators about online safety. And the third pillar is the country’s awareness and education hub, which is responsible for the educational activities involving workshops with students, educators, families developing materials and carry out campaigns on digital citizenship. About the context, the Brazilian context, in 2023 SaferNet reported a historic spike in reports related to child sexual abuse material online in Brazil. And a key factor was the rising of the use of AI tools such as notifying apps, as mentioned, and bots by young people to generate and share fake notes of classmates. This problem already affected large schools in Brazil, especially private schools, with several cases being reported by media outlets. The new trend challenges us to find an appropriate response, especially due to the fact that victims and perpetrators are minors, and the boundary between sexual experimentation and sexual abuse is becoming a little bit blurred. And this phenomenon, I think, is reshaping the way young people perceive sexuality, relationship and consent. I would like to highlight… increasing in reports in Brazil, especially involving Telegram. As I mentioned before, this is the huge challenge for us in Brazil right now because we have in 2023-24, 90% of the reporters related to messaging apps in Brazil involving Telegram reports. WhatsApp and Signal together account for the remaining 90% during the same period. When you notice, when we notify, the company limits this response for delecting the evidence with little cooperation with law enforcement agencies. It’s worth noting that at least 38 countries have legislation requiring legal, requiring digital platforms like Telegram to report to authorities when they are aware of hosting child sexual abuse material. In the United States, for example, the National Center Missing and Exploited Children, NECMEC, received 20 million industries submitted reports in 2023, none of them from Telegram. Last year, NECMEC saw an increase of 1,325 increasing reports involving generative AI going from 4,700 in 2023 to 6,700 reports in 2024. It’s an increase, a large increase in numbers. This alarming trend is also noted in Brazil. The persistence of systemic risk is inadequate response, moderation of illegal content, and telegrams non-compliance with Brazilian child protection laws led Stefanat to file a formal complaint against the company with the Federal Prosecutor’s Office in October last year. And this is the report based on this complaint. I think it’s interesting to show the proportion of the problem in Brazil. So this is the QR code to access the report. So to deep dive this trend, we run an ongoing project from Safe Online Tax Coalition, which will investigate how teens in Brazil are affected by the use of determinative AI to create and spread deepfake sexual images, also known as deep nudes. We are listening four key groups in these incidents, survivors whose images were manipulated and shared, adolescents who created and shared deep nudes, bystanders who witnessed the situation, and educators and caregivers. We will conduct a one-on-one interview with survivors and perpetrators, co-creation workshops with bystanders, and one session with educators. All activities are trauma-informed, confidential, and led by experienced professionals. Our expected outcomes include qualitative insights into how teens perceive and engage with AI-generated sexual images, practical recommendations to inform child-centered safety policies in Brazil, tangible resources for platforms to improve their trust and safety responses, a national awareness campaign to help teens identify, report, and resist this form of abuse, and a step-by-step methodological manual to replicate this work in other countries and contexts. One of the main challenges we face is going beyond legal and punitive measures. While accountability is essential, this phenomenon is deeply embedded in a culture that reproduces gender-based social norms, as mentioned previously. The misuse of DNA to create sexualized images of peers is not a tech issue or a legal gap. It’s a reflection of a broader systemic gender inequalities. That’s why prevention must also be cultural. We need long-term interventions focused on education, awareness, digital literacy in schools, as Janice mentioned, where social norms are being formed. This project aims not only to expose the harm caused by AI-generated sexual image content, but also to empower teens, educators, and communities for critically-engaged work. Our core belief is the best way to protect children is by listening to them. This project challenged the usual top-down approach. Instead of responding with moral panic or punitive measures, we are asking how do teens actually experience this? What do they think would help? And to conclude my thoughts, to effectively address this issue, we need a coordinated multi-stakeholder approach, response, bringing together tech companies, public institutions and society and academia. We have seen some initial steps. For example, META took action against a company circumventing advertising rules to promote notifying apps in these platforms. This is the first step, but that must be followed by other measures. We need the entire industry across sectors to take stronger action, especially against products that are deliberately designed to violate rights, exploit vulnerabilities and bypass existing safety standards. This requires clear accountability for enablers of harm, stronger safeguards built into platforms by design, and bold child-centered innovation that respects human rights. And just to conclude, I bring an example of education resource. It’s in Brazilian Portuguese, unfortunately, to address the issue of gender online violence co-created with adolescents in Brazil in partnership with UNICEF Brazil. It combines legal guidance… real-life cases and interactive activities is a tool to foster dialogue in classroom and with youth groups. And the type of research helps to equip youth with the tools to understand their rights, recognize harm, and build a culture of respect online. So thank you very much.

Kenneth Leung: Thank you so much, Juliana. And thank you for bringing us the Brazilian case and highlighting how encrypted platforms and services were misused, not only to disseminate CSAM, but also creating a CSAM economy on the platform, which is very worrying. And I also like how Juliana and Janice have been stressing the importance of cross-platform and cross-sectoral collaboration in combating sexual defects. So now I will open up the floor to everyone. And we’d love to hear your statement, your questions, and your comments, both here and online. And you will have two minutes to have your statements. And please state your name and affiliation when you do so, please. Yeah, please head to the mic in front of you. Thank you.

Participant: Okay, I just understood this. Can you hear me? Okay, great. Hello. Great to meet you all. And thank you for the great panel. My name is Mariana. I am Colombian. I work at the DataSphere Initiative. Very happy to hear the Brazilian case. I work and I’m leading one of our big, big projects that’s actually very close to my heart, which is called the Youth for a Data Future Project. We’ve been engaging young people in different parts of the world, pretty much in the conversation around data governance. And right now we’re wrapping up that project. And we’re starting to shape an initiative focused on influencers. So one of my big questions, and I think it’s for all of you actually, is if you’ve touched on this topic, and how have you started thinking about the role that not only influencers themselves, as adults that are influencing the online space, but young people themselves. And in Brazil, there’s a very interesting case around kid fluencers. So four or five-year-olds that are famous because of their parents’ influence, and they’re put online, and they’re sharing content and creating content themselves, or parents creating content with them. So one of my questions is, how do you see this interplay? And what’s the role of the influencer industry in shaping safety online? And have you thought about any kind of actions that could help us build a safer and more inclusive internet? And there, I just close my question. And this is more of an invitation to anybody who’s interested in the topic. I’ll be very excited to talk about this later after the workshop’s over, because I’m very excited about the work that you’re all doing. That’s it. Thank you.

Kenneth Leung: Thank you so much. And I’m seeing there’s a long queue, and we do want to get through every statement. So I would suggest to have maybe three statements or interventions at a time, and then the panel will address it collectively, if that’s all right. But thank you very much for your first question. Thank you.

Participant: Hi, my name is Frances. I’m part of Youthdig. And I just have two questions. The first, I think, Janice, you highlighted this. Why not just have a real crackdown on these kind of applications? Because I think a big reason why young children are using these apps is because it’s just very easy, right? So it’s easy to access them. You just download them. And app stores providing these kind of applications, whether it’s advertised as being notifying or not explicitly, necessarily means that young children think it’s the same as downloading Instagram or Snake Game or things like this. Thank you. So the first thing that you’re sending to young people if it’s allowed on the App Store is that this is appropriate and it’s equivalent to other fun apps, right? So why can’t we just outright ban it? I think this is something that charities in the UK are really trying to push now. And what difficulty do you have with trying to draw the line about what apps you do ban, depending on what kind of tools they allow young people or people in general to have. And then the second thing I just wanted to raise was, I think I very much agree about education and societal and attitudinal change. This is a problem about gender-based violence and it’s just another form of it, right? And I think in young children, we’re talking about deepfakes today, but I also think educating young children, perhaps especially a young woman, that when you share even real content with people who you think are trusted individuals as a young person, which it’s easy to feel this way if you’re having a relationship online or quasi-online, then it’s very important that these young people know that the content that gets shared online is always online. So even when you have WhatsApp as end-to-end encrypted and you can send these one-time images, that they’re never one-time images and this technology is very different to in-person relationships. So I would also say that. Thank you.

Robbert Hoving: Good morning, Robert Hoving from the Safer Internet Centre in the Netherlands of Limits and also of InHope. As Janice already shared our numbers. Thank you very much. I won’t go into my statement. But I was wondering two things. I went just sitting here. I went to Google, I went to Bing and I went to DuckDuckGo. And when you put in best notify apps, you just get them. So that’s how easy it is. A global legislation answer might be difficult. We’ve seen it with Mr. Deepfakes. In the Netherlands, deepfakes are both criminalized and also according to privacy law. But then you can use a VPN and you act like you come from another country. So that’s difficult. But I think you might do something with the search engine. curious about your vision on that. Second part is, as it’s so difficult to have a legal global answer, I do think, but I’m a kind of glass-half-full kind of guy, it is possible to have a more global awareness answer. Very curious how you look at these two questions. Thank you very much.

Kenneth Leung: Thank you very much. Since we have three speakers for intervention ready, I guess that we can address it very succinctly and then move on. But yeah, I would love your responses to those three interventions.

Yi Teng Au: I’ll address the question regarding why can’t we ban apps that create deepfakes and the similar question about such results. So actually, in many countries, the laws against deepfakes is very muddy because it’s a picture that is modified. Although it’s a picture of a face, the body, it’s not. So a lot of the times, it’s very hard to persecute the perpetrators. As well, there’s many societal issues as well. So in South Korea, there was an anecdote from a teacher whereby in Incheon, there was a photo, a sexual deepfake of a photo uploaded to the ex-formerly called Twitter. The perpetrator, she found out, was her student, but she had to find the student herself because the police did nothing. Then there is also many, in short, the law needs to improve to actually be effective in punishing those perpetrators.

Janice Richardson: I’d like to quickly respond to a couple of points. Influences. Kids are actually sick of them. So I think that maybe this is a trend which is not growing, which perhaps will start dwindling out, but once again it’s up to education to show that there are real places and real people who understand their subject and let’s go to those people and not to someone trying to sell me a product education. Secondly, yeah I asked the same question but in fact we come here we talk and then we don’t do anything about it and if people like us came together formed a group, started putting pressure on the search engines to delete access to these type of apps, then I think we may get somewhere. It’s very easy for industry, they have the money, they’re getting our data, they’re seeing where people are going, but why don’t people join together, why don’t people make an international action against this. So that’s my call, let’s keep working on it and yeah, once online, always online, there’s nothing more that we can say except teach our children from age one, two, three. Internet’s great to explore but they have to know that what’s mine is mine and my privacy is the most precious possession I have. About the influencers in Brazil, they play a key

Juliana Cunha: role in the culture especially because we have big influencers right now, we are discussing related to gambling for example and some influencers went to public hearing to explain all the model, the business model related to publicize gaming apps, gambling apps sorry, but of course In SaferNet, we have, on the other hand, an experience involving influencers in campaigns. It’s very interesting because it’s an effective way to communicate with young people. So you have the two sides of the coin, the influencers that gain millions and publicizing, for example, bad products. On the other hand, we have influencers that is a role model for many young people. And I think you have to take advantage of how to avoid this, and regulators have the challenge to regulate influencers in Brazil. But on the other hand, it’s important to involve them. And about the other question, I think, technically, is it possible? But of course, there is challenges, for example, how these companies are bypassing the example of the meta. Even when you ban this kind of advertising, companies try to bypass the rules. So I think the challenge is how to technically implement it and anticipate ways that these players can try to bypass. Of course, the awareness. I really think that if it’s rooted in the culture, it’s really hard. Of course, we can do better in terms of awareness as a global trend. It’s a new trend. Many people in Brazil… don’t aware about it, but I think that the culture plays an important role, so the awareness maybe can address this culture, because in Brazil especially, we have the spike of human violence, so it’s very hard to change this reality.

Kenneth Leung: Right, thank you so much for the responses. I would suggest, because we are sort of closing in for the session, but we still want to get through, so if everyone can have like maybe just one minute for your intervention, and our panelists do a very quick response, that would be gorgeous. So again, please, you have the floor for one minute, thanks.

Maciej Gron: Thank you very much. My name is Maciej Gronia, I’m from the Polish Research Institute NASK and also the hotline dujournet.pl. First of all, I would like to thank you very much for organizing this session, it’s very important. The deepfake phenomena is not something new, but you know, the scale and accessibility is completely new, and it makes a big difference, especially these new apps for addressing people, they are really democratizing this technical science, which was very difficult to make, you know, these things 20 years ago, and even two years ago, or three, now it’s accessible on a phone, so I’m the lawyer, so I can say about our regulation system. Now it’s very difficult, because we have a completely new situation, you know, the adults are… are transformed into adults and there are new situations which are not easy to tackle especially in the formal process in the court so this is the big challenge also the big challenge is that the victim and perpetrator can be the children and for example in our law system there is something like a public pedophile register and it’s not true that the children are not pedophiles so we have to change the law, we are in the process of preparing the new part of the criminal code and change some new regulations Thank you very much

Kenneth Leung: Can we have first this gentleman for one minute?

Andrew Campling: Yes, surely, we’ll be brief Hi, my name is Andrew Campling, I’m a trustee with the Internet Watch Foundation Three very quick points, I put in the chat a link where people can report illegal images including AI generated which you can report anonymously and then they’re added to our block list if they’re deemed to be illegal and that will prevent through many services them being shared further which is at least progress and that includes by the way on the public spaces on Telegram which has recently joined the IWF after its CEO was placed under house arrest in France Question for the panel, I think the biggest issue we have is with end-to-end encrypted messaging services you can technically block, prevent the sharing of CSAM on those services but it needs technical action by the service operators, it doesn’t break encryption but I think that’s where we should focus our attention because we know that that’s where CSAM including deepfake generated images is very widely shared. There’s lots of research that shows that. Thank you.

Kenneth Leung: Thank you so much. I guess we can run through all the questions and then panelists can respond with the final remarks. Please, go ahead.

Torsten Krause: Yeah, hello, my name is Torsten Krause. I’m affiliated with the Digital Opportunities Foundation based in Germany. I would like to touch on two points. It was mentioned that pictures and photos of pupils, members of sports communities and so on, part of the challenge. And I get this point, I understand it, but I’m wondering what will be the solution because I will not imagine an internet and digital environment without photos, experiences of children and young persons online because they also have the right to see their experience reflected in the internet and to find, yeah, a connection to themselves. So what will be the solution on that? Secondly, it’s connected to what Andrew Kempling asked. In the European Union, we are discussing since three years if it should be allowed or if it should be okay to compromise privacy and detect CSAM known and unknown and also grooming in encrypted environments. And I would like to know maybe, especially from the youth ambassadors, what’s your perspective on that? Thanks.

Participant: Sorry. Hi, my name is Claire and I’m a student from Hong Kong. I was wondering, excluding through education and policy and implementation, what are some preventative measures for students in combating deepfakes? Thank you. Hello, I’m Sana and I’m from NetMission. So my question is, given the rapid advancement of AI tool that can generate hyper-realistic images, how can we improve the quality of the images? And how can we improve the quality of the images? And how can we improve the quality of the images? Thank you. What kind of detection system or proactive mechanism are currently being developed, especially when we are talking about the NGOs and also when we are discussing the Koreans rapidly increasing those video viraling and images viraling. So at that point, I just have a question like, should we prioritize to identify and stop the spread of sexual defects targeting minors before they go viral? Thank you.

Yuri Bokovoy: Hi, I’m Yuri Bokovoy from the Finnish Green Party. My first question is specifically to Janice. It’s about how to improve awareness of these issues, especially in education. When the government’s rotary legislators in education departments are, at least in our country, quite often made up of quite conservative voices, which dismiss these issues as harmless. And the second question is more general about, we’ve seen a lot of these regulations that are supposed to protect children be misused by more authoritarian governments to silence free speech and expression elsewhere, most recently today and yesterday in Hungary. What can we do to safeguard against misuse of these regulations that are supposed to protect children?

Kenneth Leung: Thank you so much. And we actually have one last comment on Zoom, I’ll just read it out. So it’s a statement and she wants to chime in on the Korea case and if there’s any innovation measures mentioned in the slide that are truly effective. So I guess in the next 30 seconds, everyone can make their remarks and conclude the session.

Juliana Cunha: Yes, I have no time, but I’d like to thank… Thank you, and I’m happy to talk to everyone when to continue the conversation about the panel. Thank you very much.

Janice Richardson: If we’re so clever with technology, why can’t we make something that when once we’ve put an image online, it becomes indelible, it becomes unchangeable. I’d like more efforts from the tech industry, improving awareness. There’s a great initiative in Latin America where they actually educate the ministers, the ministers of education, so that we get not only a bottom-up from awareness raisers, but a top-down from the people who are meant to be there, who are elected to look after us.

Yi Teng Au: For me, the problem I think I really feel is the accessibility of these tools. For example, you have like, even if we outright have safeguards, for example, check GPT in like, against this sexually explicit content, people who really are into it would find ways to download offline models such as stable division. So the real thing is to how do we educate enough and make the accessibility of creating such content not as accessible.

Ji Won Oh: Okay, in closing, Defects X Crimes, another global problem. Before starting to study internet governance, I doubt that I actually had a big role, but now I’m thinking that everyone has a huge role. At studying public science, I think the political and institutions expect need to be supplemented. But I think that opinions are various, like there are all importance for protect something. And Defects X Crimes may start online, but they destroy real lives. So let’s face the problems together, not just with punishment, but with prevention, awareness, and empathy. Thank you.

Kenneth Leung: Thank you so much. And I guess we will be concluding this session, but we’d love to have more of your thoughts. So, if you can, please comment on this platform And once again, I guess the concluding takeaway is we must act together in order to combat sexual defects and to be good citizens Thank you very much and I hope you enjoy the rest of your day Thank you Thank you very much

Agreement points

Multi-stakeholder collaboration is essential for addressing sexual deepfakes

Speakers

– Juliana Cunha
– Janice Richardson

Arguments

Coordinated response needed bringing together tech companies, public institutions, society and academia

Cross-platform collaboration lacking with companies needing to share knowledge more effectively

Industry should partner with education in curriculum development rather than just providing tools

Summary

Both speakers emphasize that effective solutions require coordinated efforts across multiple sectors including technology companies, educational institutions, government agencies, and civil society organizations rather than isolated approaches.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Infrastructure | Human rights

The problem is rooted in deeper cultural and social issues beyond technology

Speakers

– Ji Won Oh
– Juliana Cunha
– Janice Richardson

Arguments

Many students don’t understand seriousness and think deepfake creation is funny or harmless

Issue reflects broader systemic gender inequalities requiring cultural prevention beyond legal measures

Young people indicate adults need education as they are often the ones suffering and lacking solutions

Summary

All three speakers recognize that sexual deepfakes are not merely a technical problem but reflect deeper cultural attitudes about gender, consent, and digital behavior that require long-term educational and cultural interventions.

Topics

Human rights | Sociocultural | Legal and regulatory

Education and awareness are critical components of prevention

Speakers

– Ji Won Oh
– Yi Teng Au
– Juliana Cunha
– Janice Richardson

Arguments

Korean Ministry of Education published five guidebooks tailored to different age groups addressing deepfakes

Brazil created educational resources combining legal guidance with real-life cases and interactive activities

Morocco trained teachers in cascade model with two resource persons per school for rapid issue escalation

Netherlands provides six-week courses on health and technology during elementary to middle school transition

Summary

All speakers agree that comprehensive educational approaches tailored to different age groups and contexts are essential for preventing sexual deepfake abuse and building digital literacy.

Topics

Sociocultural | Human rights | Development

Legal frameworks are inadequate and need strengthening

Speakers

– Yi Teng Au
– Kenneth Leung
– Maciej Gron

Arguments

Laws against deepfakes are unclear because modified images create legal ambiguity about prosecution

UK’s 2025 Data Use and Access Act criminalized creation of intimate images but only covers adults

Polish legal system faces challenges with new situations involving child victims and perpetrators

Summary

Multiple speakers highlight that existing legal frameworks are insufficient to address the complexities of deepfake crimes, particularly when involving minors as both victims and perpetrators.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights | Cybersecurity

Platform cooperation and technical solutions are insufficient

Speakers

– Yi Teng Au
– Juliana Cunha
– Andrew Campling
– Robbert Hoving

Arguments

Platform hopping phenomenon where perpetrators shift from Telegram to other platforms making detection harder

Telegram accounts for 90% of messaging app reports in Brazil with limited cooperation with law enforcement

End-to-end encrypted messaging services present biggest challenge for blocking CSAM sharing

Search engines easily provide access to deepfake creation apps when searched

Summary

Speakers agree that current platform responses are inadequate, with limited cooperation from some platforms and technical challenges in encrypted environments allowing harmful content to persist and spread.

Topics

Cybersecurity | Infrastructure | Legal and regulatory

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers provide complementary data about the scale of the deepfake crisis in Korean schools, emphasizing how widespread the problem has become and the casual attitude of perpetrators.

Speakers

– Ji Won Oh
– Yi Teng Au

Arguments

Korean schools experienced widespread deepfake sexual videos affecting hundreds of schools with secret Telegram chat rooms

Over 500 schools affected by deepfake videos in South Korea, with 54% of offenders claiming they did it ‘for fun’

Topics

Cybersecurity | Human rights | Sociocultural

Both speakers recognize that cultural factors, particularly around gender and shame, create significant barriers to addressing sexual deepfakes and require culturally sensitive approaches.

Speakers

– Juliana Cunha
– Janice Richardson

Arguments

Issue reflects broader systemic gender inequalities requiring cultural prevention beyond legal measures

Reporting challenges exist due to humiliation, especially in countries like Morocco and Tunisia

Topics

Human rights | Sociocultural | Legal and regulatory

Both speakers emphasize that the easy accessibility of deepfake creation tools is a fundamental problem requiring coordinated pressure on technology companies and platforms.

Speakers

– Yi Teng Au
– Janice Richardson

Arguments

Accessibility of AI tools like stable diffusion makes content creation too easy despite safeguards

International action needed with people joining together to pressure search engines and platforms

Topics

Infrastructure | Cybersecurity | Legal and regulatory

Unexpected consensus

Technical innovation can be part of the solution

Speakers

– Yi Teng Au
– Janice Richardson

Arguments

Korean DeepFake dataset with 2.73 terabytes achieved 96% accuracy in detecting altered videos

Seoul Metropolitan Government developed detection tool identifying school items, uniforms, and youth slang

Technology should make images indelible and unchangeable once posted online

Explanation

Despite criticism of technology companies, there was unexpected consensus that technical solutions and innovations can be part of addressing the problem, with examples of successful detection systems and calls for better technical safeguards.

Topics

Infrastructure | Cybersecurity | Legal and regulatory

Young people should be central to developing solutions

Speakers

– Juliana Cunha
– Janice Richardson

Arguments

Brazil created educational resources combining legal guidance with real-life cases and interactive activities

Young people indicate adults need education as they are often the ones suffering and lacking solutions

Explanation

There was unexpected consensus that young people should not just be protected but should be actively involved in creating solutions, with recognition that they often understand the problems better than adults.

Topics

Sociocultural | Human rights | Development

Overall assessment

Summary

Speakers demonstrated strong consensus on the need for multi-stakeholder collaboration, the cultural roots of the problem, the importance of education, inadequacy of current legal frameworks, and insufficient platform cooperation. There was also unexpected agreement on the potential for technical solutions and the importance of youth involvement in developing responses.

Consensus level

High level of consensus across all major aspects of the issue, suggesting a mature understanding of the problem’s complexity and the need for comprehensive, coordinated responses. This strong agreement among diverse stakeholders from different regions and sectors provides a solid foundation for developing effective global strategies to combat sexual deepfakes targeting minors.

Different viewpoints

Approach to banning deepfake creation applications

Speakers

– Frances (Participant)
– Yi Teng Au
– Janice Richardson

Arguments

Why not just have a real crackdown on these kind of applications?

Laws against deepfakes are unclear because modified images create legal ambiguity about prosecution

International action needed with people joining together to pressure search engines and platforms

Summary

Frances advocates for outright banning of deepfake apps from app stores, while Yi Teng explains legal complexities make prosecution difficult, and Janice calls for coordinated pressure on platforms rather than just bans

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Infrastructure | Cybersecurity

Privacy versus child protection in encrypted communications

Speakers

– Andrew Campling
– Torsten Krause

Arguments

End-to-end encrypted messaging services present biggest challenge for blocking CSAM sharing

European Union discussing compromising privacy to detect CSAM in encrypted environments for three years

Summary

Andrew emphasizes technical solutions within encrypted systems without breaking encryption, while Torsten raises concerns about the EU’s consideration of compromising privacy for child protection

Topics

Cybersecurity | Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Role of online image sharing by schools and institutions

Speakers

– Janice Richardson
– Torsten Krause

Arguments

Schools still have a tendency to post the face, the image of their pupils in sports, in all sorts of activities. And this is the first problem

I would not imagine an internet and digital environment without photos, experiences of children and young persons online because they also have the right to see their experience reflected in the internet

Summary

Janice views school posting of student images as problematic source material for deepfakes, while Torsten argues children have rights to digital representation and asks what the solution would be

Topics

Human rights | Sociocultural | Cybersecurity

Unexpected differences

Effectiveness of influencer involvement in prevention

Speakers

– Mariana (Participant)
– Janice Richardson
– Juliana Cunha

Arguments

What’s the role of the influencer industry in shaping safety online?

Kids are actually sick of them. So I think that maybe this is a trend which is not growing

Influencers play a key role in the culture… we have influencers that is a role model for many young people

Explanation

Unexpected disagreement emerged about influencer effectiveness, with Janice dismissing their relevance while Juliana sees them as important cultural figures, despite both being experienced educators

Topics

Sociocultural | Human rights | Development

Prioritization of technical versus cultural solutions

Speakers

– Yi Teng Au
– Juliana Cunha

Arguments

Accessibility of AI tools like stable diffusion makes content creation too easy despite safeguards

Issue reflects broader systemic gender inequalities requiring cultural prevention beyond legal measures

Explanation

Despite both being young advocates, Yi Teng emphasizes technical accessibility problems while Juliana prioritizes cultural and systemic issues, showing generational perspectives aren’t uniform

Topics

Cybersecurity | Human rights | Sociocultural

Overall assessment

Summary

Main disagreements centered on regulatory approaches (banning vs. education), privacy-security balance, and whether to restrict or protect children’s digital presence

Disagreement level

Moderate disagreement level with speakers generally aligned on problem severity but differing on solution priorities and implementation methods. This suggests need for comprehensive approaches that integrate multiple perspectives rather than choosing single solutions.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers provide complementary data about the scale of the deepfake crisis in Korean schools, emphasizing how widespread the problem has become and the casual attitude of perpetrators.

Speakers

– Ji Won Oh
– Yi Teng Au

Arguments

Korean schools experienced widespread deepfake sexual videos affecting hundreds of schools with secret Telegram chat rooms

Over 500 schools affected by deepfake videos in South Korea, with 54% of offenders claiming they did it ‘for fun’

Topics

Cybersecurity | Human rights | Sociocultural

Both speakers recognize that cultural factors, particularly around gender and shame, create significant barriers to addressing sexual deepfakes and require culturally sensitive approaches.

Speakers

– Juliana Cunha
– Janice Richardson

Arguments

Issue reflects broader systemic gender inequalities requiring cultural prevention beyond legal measures

Reporting challenges exist due to humiliation, especially in countries like Morocco and Tunisia

Topics

Human rights | Sociocultural | Legal and regulatory

Both speakers emphasize that the easy accessibility of deepfake creation tools is a fundamental problem requiring coordinated pressure on technology companies and platforms.

Speakers

– Yi Teng Au
– Janice Richardson

Arguments

Accessibility of AI tools like stable diffusion makes content creation too easy despite safeguards

International action needed with people joining together to pressure search engines and platforms

Topics

Infrastructure | Cybersecurity | Legal and regulatory

Key takeaways

Sexual deepfakes targeting minors is a rapidly growing global crisis, with Korea seeing a seven-fold increase in cases from 2021-2024 and Brazil experiencing historic spikes in AI-generated CSAM reports

The problem is fundamentally rooted in gender-based violence and cultural attitudes, requiring prevention strategies that go beyond legal and technical solutions

Current legal frameworks are inadequate, with laws struggling to address the ambiguity of modified images and the complexity of cases involving both child victims and perpetrators

Platform hopping and encrypted messaging services present major enforcement challenges, with perpetrators easily shifting between platforms to avoid detection

Education and digital literacy programs are essential, but must be implemented systematically with proper teacher training and age-appropriate curricula

Multi-stakeholder collaboration between governments, tech companies, educators, and civil society is critical but currently insufficient

Technical solutions like detection tools and datasets show promise but need broader implementation and local adaptation

Many young perpetrators don’t understand the seriousness of their actions, viewing deepfake creation as harmless fun rather than abuse

Resolutions and action items

Participants encouraged to share additional thoughts and resources on the csit.tk platform for one week post-workshop to synthesize discussion into a report

Call for international coalition to pressure search engines to remove access to deepfake creation apps

Recommendation for countries without detection datasets to develop ones tailored to local needs, following Korea’s example

Proposal for tech industry to develop technology making images indelible and unchangeable once posted online

Suggestion to educate government ministers and education departments from top-down while maintaining grassroots awareness efforts

Need for stronger industry accountability measures against products deliberately designed to violate rights and exploit vulnerabilities

Unresolved issues

How to balance children’s right to have their experiences reflected online with protection from image misuse

Whether to compromise privacy and encryption to detect CSAM in encrypted messaging environments

How to prevent misuse of child protection regulations by authoritarian governments to silence free speech

Effective global coordination mechanisms when legal responses vary significantly between countries

How to address conservative voices in government and education who dismiss these issues as harmless

Practical implementation of detection systems that can stop viral spread before content reaches wide audiences

Role and regulation of influencers, particularly child influencers, in shaping online safety culture

How to improve cross-platform collaboration when companies have competing interests

Suggested compromises

Focus enforcement efforts on end-to-end encrypted messaging services where technical blocking is possible without breaking encryption

Combine legal accountability measures with cultural prevention through long-term educational interventions

Use influencers positively in awareness campaigns while regulating harmful promotional activities

Implement cascade training models with two resource teachers per school for rapid issue escalation

Develop age-appropriate educational approaches that are engaging rather than threatening, such as using magicians for delivery

Create anonymous reporting mechanisms to address cultural barriers around shame and humiliation

Balance technical innovation in detection with privacy protection concerns

Coordinate awareness campaigns globally while allowing for local cultural adaptation

This problem already affected large schools in Brazil, especially private schools, with several cases being reported by media outlets. The new trend challenges us to find an appropriate response, especially due to the fact that victims and perpetrators are minors, and the boundary between sexual experimentation and sexual abuse is becoming a little bit blurred.

Speaker

Juliana Cunha

Reason

This comment is deeply insightful because it identifies a fundamental challenge in addressing deepfake sexual abuse among minors – the blurring of traditional boundaries between normal adolescent sexual exploration and abuse. It highlights the complexity of creating appropriate responses when both victims and perpetrators are children, challenging conventional approaches to both prevention and punishment.

Impact

This observation shifted the discussion from purely technical and legal solutions toward recognizing the nuanced developmental and psychological aspects of the problem. It helped frame the issue as requiring more sophisticated, age-appropriate responses rather than simply applying adult-focused legal frameworks.

When I talk to young people, they say, actually, it’s not the nude profiles that are bothersome. If someone puts a bikini, but then a very sexual stance, is it a nude profile? This is where it really raises issues. If there’s a little bit of clothing, then they think they’re out of the category of a sexual fake profile.

Speaker

Janice Richardson

Reason

This comment reveals a critical gap between adult perceptions of harm and young people’s actual experiences. It challenges the binary thinking around what constitutes harmful content and exposes how perpetrators might exploit these gray areas. The insight shows how young people’s understanding of the issue differs from adult frameworks.

Impact

This comment prompted deeper consideration of how policies and education programs need to address the spectrum of harmful content, not just obvious cases. It highlighted the need for more nuanced approaches that consider how young people actually perceive and categorize these violations.

Young people also turn to me and say, you should be educating the adults about this because very often, it’s them, the ones that are suffering, the ones that are doing this, and the ones that don’t have the opportunity to tackle it.

Speaker

Janice Richardson

Reason

This comment is particularly thought-provoking because it inverts the typical assumption that children need to be educated by adults. Instead, it reveals that young people see adults as part of the problem and lacking understanding. This challenges the traditional top-down approach to digital safety education.

Impact

This observation led to a fundamental questioning of who should be the target of education efforts and how programs should be designed. It suggested that effective solutions require educating entire communities, not just young people, and that youth voices should be central to developing responses.

The misuse of DNA to create sexualized images of peers is not a tech issue or a legal gap. It’s a reflection of a broader systemic gender inequalities. That’s why prevention must also be cultural.

Speaker

Juliana Cunha

Reason

This comment reframes the entire discussion by identifying the root cause as systemic gender inequality rather than just a technological or legal problem. It’s insightful because it moves beyond symptom-focused solutions to address underlying cultural and social structures that enable this abuse.

Impact

This perspective shifted the conversation toward recognizing that technical and legal solutions alone are insufficient. It emphasized the need for long-term cultural change and gender equality work, influencing how other participants discussed prevention strategies and the importance of addressing social norms.

If we’re so clever with technology, why can’t we make something that when once we’ve put an image online, it becomes indelible, it becomes unchangeable. I’d like more efforts from the tech industry.

Speaker

Janice Richardson

Reason

This comment is thought-provoking because it challenges the tech industry’s priorities and capabilities. It questions why technological innovation isn’t being directed toward protecting users rather than just creating new features, and suggests a fundamental redesign of how digital content works.

Impact

This comment sparked discussion about the role and responsibility of tech companies, moving beyond just content moderation to considering fundamental changes in how platforms and digital content function. It challenged participants to think about proactive rather than reactive technical solutions.

Our core belief is the best way to protect children is by listening to them. This project challenged the usual top-down approach. Instead of responding with moral panic or punitive measures, we are asking how do teens actually experience this? What do they think would help?

Speaker

Juliana Cunha

Reason

This comment is insightful because it advocates for a fundamentally different methodology in addressing child protection – one that centers children’s voices and experiences rather than adult assumptions. It challenges the typical ‘moral panic’ responses that often characterize discussions about children and technology.

Impact

This perspective influenced the discussion by emphasizing the importance of youth-centered research and policy development. It reinforced the need for evidence-based approaches that actually reflect young people’s experiences rather than adult fears or assumptions about what children need.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally shaped the discussion by challenging conventional approaches to addressing deepfake sexual abuse. They moved the conversation beyond simple technical and legal solutions toward recognizing the complex cultural, developmental, and systemic factors involved. The most impactful insights came from recognizing that young people’s experiences and perspectives differ significantly from adult assumptions, that the problem is rooted in broader gender inequalities rather than just technology misuse, and that effective solutions require listening to affected youth rather than imposing top-down approaches. These comments collectively shifted the discussion from a problem-focused to a solution-oriented dialogue that emphasized collaboration, cultural change, and youth empowerment as essential components of any effective response.

What is the role of influencers and the influencer industry in shaping online safety, particularly regarding kid influencers and young content creators?

Speaker

Mariana from DataSphere Initiative

Explanation

This addresses a gap in understanding how influential figures in digital spaces can either contribute to or help prevent deepfake abuse, especially given the rise of very young influencers

Why can’t there be a complete crackdown and ban on deepfake creation applications, and what are the technical and legal challenges in drawing the line on what apps to ban?

Speaker

Frances from Youthdig

Explanation

This highlights the need for clearer understanding of regulatory approaches and their feasibility in addressing the root accessibility problem

How can search engines be leveraged to prevent access to deepfake creation tools, given that they easily surface when searched?

Speaker

Robert Hoving from Safer Internet Centre Netherlands

Explanation

This identifies a potential intervention point that hasn’t been fully explored – controlling discoverability rather than just the apps themselves

What are effective global awareness strategies that can transcend legal jurisdictional limitations?

Speaker

Robert Hoving from Safer Internet Centre Netherlands

Explanation

This addresses the challenge that legal solutions may be limited by jurisdiction, but awareness campaigns could have broader reach

How can criminal law systems be adapted to handle cases where both victims and perpetrators are minors, particularly regarding existing frameworks like pedophile registers?

Speaker

Maciej Gronia from Polish Research Institute NASK

Explanation

This highlights a significant gap in legal frameworks that weren’t designed for peer-to-peer abuse among minors

How can CSAM detection and prevention be implemented in end-to-end encrypted messaging services without breaking encryption?

Speaker

Andrew Campling from Internet Watch Foundation

Explanation

This addresses a critical technical challenge in balancing privacy protection with child safety in encrypted communications

What solutions exist for maintaining children’s right to digital representation while protecting them from deepfake abuse?

Speaker

Torsten Krause from Digital Opportunities Foundation

Explanation

This highlights the tension between child protection and children’s rights to participate in digital spaces

What is the youth perspective on compromising privacy to detect CSAM and grooming in encrypted environments?

Speaker

Torsten Krause from Digital Opportunities Foundation

Explanation

This seeks to understand how the primary affected demographic views the privacy vs. safety trade-off

What preventative measures can students themselves take to combat deepfakes, beyond education and policy implementation?

Speaker

Claire, student from Hong Kong

Explanation

This seeks practical, actionable steps that young people can take independently to protect themselves

What detection systems and proactive mechanisms are being developed to identify and stop sexual deepfakes targeting minors before they go viral?

Speaker

Sana from NetMission

Explanation

This addresses the need for technical solutions that can intervene early in the distribution process

How can awareness of deepfake issues be improved in education systems when government and education departments are led by conservative voices who dismiss these issues?

Speaker

Yuri Bokovoy from Finnish Green Party

Explanation

This highlights political and institutional barriers to implementing educational solutions

How can regulations protecting children from deepfakes be designed to prevent misuse by authoritarian governments to silence free speech?

Speaker

Yuri Bokovoy from Finnish Green Party

Explanation

This addresses the critical balance between child protection and preserving democratic freedoms

Are the innovation measures mentioned in the Korean case study truly effective in practice?

Speaker

Zoom participant (unnamed)

Explanation

This seeks evaluation of real-world effectiveness of implemented technical solutions

Why can’t technology be developed to make images indelible and unchangeable once posted online?

Speaker

Janice Richardson

Explanation

This suggests a technical research direction that could prevent manipulation of images at the source

Summary

This panel discussion explored the evolving landscape of multi-stakeholder governance in the digital age, featuring representatives from various Dynamic Coalitions within the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). The session focused on making internet governance more inclusive and accessible, particularly for marginalized communities including persons with disabilities, children, and youth. Dr. Muhammad Shabbir from the Dynamic Coalition on Accessibility and Disability emphasized that approximately 15% of the world’s population—equivalent to the population of India or China—consists of persons with disabilities who are not meaningfully benefiting from current digital governance systems. He argued for their meaningful inclusion in decision-making processes rather than tokenistic representation.

Dr. Rajendra Pratap Gupta highlighted the economic implications of digital exclusion, noting that 2.7 billion people remain unconnected to the internet, potentially limiting global GDP growth. He criticized the current multi-stakeholder governance model as being reactive rather than proactive. Representatives from UNESCO’s Dynamic Coalition on Internet Universality Indicators discussed their framework based on human rights, openness, accessibility, and multi-stakeholder governance principles. The Dynamic Coalition on Core Internet Values, presented by Olivier Crepin-Leblond, outlined fundamental internet principles including global accessibility, interoperability, and decentralized control, while noting that many of these values are being eroded.

Avri Doria from the Schools of Internet Governance coalition described their work in developing curriculum, providing practical training, and theorizing multi-stakeholder models. The discussion also covered emerging areas like interplanetary internet governance and children’s rights in digital environments. Participants debated whether Dynamic Coalitions should seek formal representation on the IGF’s Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) or maintain their current bottom-up, independent approach. The consensus emerged that Dynamic Coalitions serve as crucial testing grounds for innovative governance approaches and should focus on creating substantive impact through collaborative work rather than seeking formal institutional power.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Inclusive Multi-Stakeholder Governance**: The need to ensure meaningful participation of marginalized communities, including persons with disabilities (representing 15-16% of global population), youth, and other underrepresented groups in internet governance decision-making processes, moving beyond tokenism to genuine inclusion.

– **Dynamic Coalitions’ Role and Impact**: Discussion of how Dynamic Coalitions function as bottom-up, flexible organizations that work intersessionally on specific internet governance issues, with emphasis on their independence, openness, and ability to produce substantive research and policy recommendations.

– **Bridging the Digital Divide and Access Issues**: Concerns about 2.7 billion people still lacking internet connectivity and the economic implications, with calls for multi-stakeholder governance to prioritize access over emerging technologies like AI, and recognition that lack of internet access itself constitutes a form of disability.

– **Power Dynamics in Internet Governance**: Recognition that real power in internet governance lies with big tech companies rather than in IGF discussions, leading to debates about how to make multi-stakeholder processes more influential and whether Dynamic Coalitions need greater representation in governance structures like the MAG (Multistakeholder Advisory Group).

– **Evolution of Governance Models**: Exploration of how multi-stakeholder models can be improved to be more global, equal, and effective, including discussions of age categorization for youth participation, the application of governance principles to emerging areas like interplanetary networks, and the need for governance structures to adapt to technological changes.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to explore how multi-stakeholder governance in internet governance can evolve to be more inclusive and effective, particularly focusing on the role of Dynamic Coalitions in representing diverse communities and producing meaningful policy outcomes. The panel sought to address gaps in current governance models and propose ways to ensure all stakeholders have genuine voice and influence in shaping internet governance.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a collaborative and constructive tone throughout, with participants showing mutual respect and building on each other’s contributions. While there were acknowledgments of serious challenges (power imbalances, exclusion of marginalized groups, slow progress on connectivity), the tone remained optimistic and solution-oriented. Participants demonstrated pride in the work of Dynamic Coalitions while also being realistic about limitations and the need for improvement. The atmosphere was professional yet passionate, with speakers clearly committed to their causes while remaining open to cooperation and learning from other coalitions.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Judith Hellerstein** – Panel moderator/chair, co-coordinator of Dynamic Coalition on Accessibility and Disability

– **Dr. Muhammad Shabbir** – Co-coordinator of Dynamic Coalition on Accessibility and Disability

– **Dr. Rajendra Pratap Gupta** – Representative of Dynamic Coalition on Core Internet Values (referred to as “Vajendra” in transcript)

– **Tatevik Grigoryan** – UNESCO representative, Dynamic Coalition on Internet Universality Indicators

– **Olivier Crepin-Leblond** – Representative of Dynamic Coalition on Core Internet Values

– **Avri Doria** – Coordinator of Dynamic Coalition on Schools and Internet Governance

– **Roberto Gaetano** – Representative of Dynamic Coalition on Interplanetary Networks

– **Wout de Natris** – Representative of Dynamic Coalition on Internet Standards, Security and Safety

– **Jutta** – Co-chair of Dynamic Coalition Coordinating Group, representative of Dynamic Coalition on Children’s Rights and the Digital Environment

– **Marcus** – Co-facilitator of Dynamic Coalition Coordinating Group

– **Lubos Kuklis** – Online moderator/technical support

– **Audience** – Various audience members asking questions

**Additional speakers:**

– **Kjetil Kjernsmo** – Unaffiliated individual, audience member

– **Henry Wang** – Singapore Internet Governance Forum (SGIGF), co-founder of Lingo.ai

– **Vasiliy Zudin** – Center for Global IT Cooperation, Russian NGO representative

# Multi-Stakeholder Governance in the Digital Age: Dynamic Coalitions and Inclusive Internet Governance

## Executive Summary

This panel discussion explored multi-stakeholder governance through the lens of Dynamic Coalitions within the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) ecosystem. Moderated by Judith Hellerstein, co-coordinator of the Dynamic Coalition on Accessibility and Disability, the session brought together representatives from six Dynamic Coalitions: Accessibility and Disability, Core Internet Values, Interplanetary Networks, Internet Standards Security and Safety, Schools and Internet Governance, and Children’s Rights and the Digital Environment.

The discussion focused on making internet governance more inclusive and accessible, particularly for marginalized communities including persons with disabilities, children, and youth. Participants examined both achievements and limitations of current multi-stakeholder governance models while highlighting the role of Dynamic Coalitions as experimental spaces for developing innovative governance approaches.

## What Are Dynamic Coalitions?

Dynamic Coalitions are bottom-up, open groups within the IGF that work on specific internet governance issues. As Judith Hellerstein explained in her opening, they emerged from WSIS 2020 outcomes and operate as flexible, inclusive spaces where anyone can participate by subscribing to mailing lists or applying for membership. Information about joining is available at the IGF booth in the village.

## Key Coalition Perspectives

### Dynamic Coalition on Accessibility and Disability

Dr. Muhammad Shabbir emphasized that approximately 15-16% of the world’s population—equivalent to the entire population of India or China—consists of persons with disabilities who are not meaningfully benefiting from current digital governance systems. He argued against tokenistic representation, stating: “The system might be functioning for some, but there is a very huge number of population… who are not benefiting or meaningfully benefiting from the processes or the systems that our so-called perfect technologists, policy makers have evolved.”

Dr. Shabbir emphasized that Dynamic Coalitions function as facilitators rather than top-down directors, providing guidance and resources while maintaining their bottom-up character. He noted that while formal power structures may not voluntarily redistribute power equally, Dynamic Coalitions retain “the power of the people which cannot be taken away from us.”

### Dynamic Coalition on Core Internet Values

Olivier Crepin-Leblond outlined fundamental internet principles including global accessibility, interoperability, decentralized control, end-to-end connectivity, and robustness. He noted that many of these core values are being eroded and require active protection as the foundation for other internet governance work.

The coalition emphasizes openness, requiring no subscription or approval process and welcoming new members. Olivier committed to working one-on-one with other Dynamic Coalitions to identify partnerships and defend their work through core internet values.

### Dynamic Coalition on Interplanetary Networks

Roberto Gaetano introduced the emerging area of interplanetary internet governance, explaining that interplanetary communication requires different protocols due to delays and moving nodes in space. He referenced the São Paulo Declaration of NetMundial Plus 10 and emphasized the need to develop multi-stakeholder governance models for interplanetary internet before it becomes shaped only by telecom operators and space agencies.

Gaetano stressed that multi-stakeholder models must be truly global and equal, with stakeholder groups participating on equal footing, warning against the monopolization of voices within stakeholder groups.

### Dynamic Coalition on Internet Standards, Security and Safety

Wout de Natris highlighted a concerning gap between available security standards and their implementation, noting that many companies fail to deploy internet security standards that have existed for 20 years. He advocated for governments and companies to procure ICT that is secure by design.

De Natris argued that Dynamic Coalitions should advocate for representation on the MAG (Multistakeholder Advisory Group) to better integrate their work into IGF processes, noting that while coalitions have improved visibility through clustering approaches over the past 2-3 years, they need greater influence to move from being “an appendix on the side.”

### Dynamic Coalition on Schools and Internet Governance

Avri Doria described comprehensive work in developing curriculum, providing practical training, and theorizing multi-stakeholder models. She emphasized that many people lack practice in multi-stakeholder participation and need safe spaces to develop these skills. The coalition provides coursework, practica for participation skills, and theory development, with students entering industry and institutions to create change “one classroom at a time.”

Doria strongly advocated for maintaining independence from MAG and UN strictures to preserve flexibility and grassroots engagement.

### Dynamic Coalition on Children’s Rights and the Digital Environment

Jutta highlighted that one-third of internet users worldwide are under 18 and deserve meaningful voice in internet governance. She noted that digital environments have opened new opportunities for children and youth to participate directly without adult accompaniment, fundamentally changing traditional participation models.

Markus, co-facilitator of the Dynamic Coalition Coordinating Group, advocated for fresh perspectives on age categorization, suggesting that children under 12, teenagers aged 13-18, and various adult categories have fundamentally different needs and capabilities.

## The Digital Divide Challenge

Dr. Rajendra Pratap Gupta provided economic analysis of digital exclusion, noting that one-third of people globally—approximately 2.7 billion individuals—remain unconnected to the internet. He criticized current governance approaches as “reactive, not proactive,” arguing that at the current pace of progress, “it’ll take more than a decade for us to connect the people.”

Dr. Gupta challenged current priority-setting in internet governance, arguing that artificial intelligence is being prioritized over basic internet access. He suggested that “the issue is not with multi-stakeholder governance. The issue is governance of multi-stakeholder governance,” indicating that meta-governance structures need reform.

## Power Dynamics and Fundamental Challenges

The discussion took a critical turn when audience member Kjetil Kjernsmo directly challenged the panel’s premise, stating: “The power of internet governance is not in this room. It is chiefly with big tech… Shouldn’t we be moving towards polycentrism rather than multi-stakeholderism?”

This intervention forced participants to confront where actual power lies in internet governance and whether current approaches are adequate. The question of formal representation versus independence remained a key tension throughout the discussion.

## Additional Perspectives

Henry Wang contributed thoughts about decentralized protocols and infrastructure for the future, while Vasiliy Zudin extended an invitation for collaboration with Russian NGO’s Global Digital Forum, demonstrating the international scope of Dynamic Coalition work.

## UNESCO’s Internet Universality Indicators

Tatevik Grigoryan from UNESCO presented their Dynamic Coalition on Internet Universality Indicators, though audio issues made much of her contribution unclear. She emphasized that multi-stakeholder participation represents UNESCO’s official position, endorsed by 194 member states.

## Practical Outcomes

The discussion generated several concrete commitments:

– Dynamic Coalitions coordination group will work on making coalition membership and participation pathways more visible and accessible

– The Dynamic Coalition on Core Internet Values will work with other coalitions to identify partnerships

– Coalitions will continue their clustering approach while considering advocacy for MAG representation

– The Dynamic Coalition on Internet Standards, Security and Safety will continue advocating for secure-by-design ICT procurement

– All coalitions committed to focusing on substantive work and measurable impact

## Conclusion

This discussion demonstrated the maturity of thinking within the Dynamic Coalitions community about multi-stakeholder governance challenges. While participants acknowledged significant limitations in current approaches—including power imbalances and slow progress on connectivity—they maintained focus on collaborative work and bottom-up innovation.

The conversation revealed Dynamic Coalitions as crucial experimental spaces within the IGF ecosystem, providing flexibility for innovation that more formal structures might not accommodate. The ongoing tension between seeking formal influence and maintaining independence reflects broader challenges in internet governance about balancing effectiveness with authenticity.

The session reinforced that multi-stakeholder governance remains a work in progress, requiring continuous adaptation to address emerging challenges while maintaining core principles of inclusivity, openness, and collaborative problem-solving.

Judith Hellerstein: Thanks so much for coming to our panel. I know we’re competing with so many other ones, but it’s great to see a lot of people here. This panel will focus on exploring the evolving landscapes of multi-stakeholder governance in the digital age, with a focus on the outcomes of the WSIS 2020, and ensuring that all communities, including marginalized communities, persons with disabilities, and young adults and children are active participants in shaping the future of the IGF. So there are several different dynamic coalitions here, and we also have a booth in the main area where you can pick up information about the booth and about all of our RDCs that are there. Right here we have the Dynamic Coalition on Accessibility and Disability, which focuses on the future of multi-stakeholder governance and making sure that it’s inclusive, not only in principle but in practice. We also have the Dynamic Coalition on Core Internet Values, as well as the Dynamic Coalition on Intergenerational Planets, the Dynamic Coalition on Security and Stability, the Dynamic Coalition on Schools and Internet Governance, as well as the Dynamic Coalition on Digital Coalition on the Rights of Children. So we have all these coalitions here and we’re going to start first with the Dynamic Coalition on Accessibility and Disability. And this is Dr. Mohammad Shabir. He along with myself are the co-coordinators of our Dynamic Coalition. So let me bring it over to Dr. Shabir.

Dr. Muhammad Shabbir: Thank you very much, Judith. Thank you for giving the opportunity. And my colleagues for being at this table to discuss the future of multi-stakeholder governance. From the perspective of Dynamic Coalition on Accessibility and Disability, I would have a couple of points to make in the initial intervention. And then we can follow those points in the interactive discussion. The first thing is that there are a number of instruments at the high level, as well as regional and national level, that talk about inclusivity, accessibility, and rights of persons with disabilities in the digital spaces. These range from at the top of all these instruments sits the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which most of the governments by now have not just signed, but ratified. Then we have WSIS 20 plus, which is being reviewed this year. That could be that also talks about inclusivity. We have the Global Digital Compact, where inclusivity for persons with disabilities is also referred. And then we have digital. inclusion strategy by the UN Secretary General where inclusivity is talked about. While this year is very important, as we all know, we’ll be not only deciding the future of internet governance, but we will also be deciding that how the future of multi-stakeholder governance should be shaping up. So inclusion of persons with disabilities in the decision-making, as we discussed in the session on Beyond Tokenism, the inclusion of persons with disabilities in internet governance. This was one of the sessions where we talked about different ways and strategies that can be implemented in the way of involving persons with disabilities in further sessions. We, as Dynamic Coalitions, we also organized three key sessions in different clusters. I won’t go into the details, but yesterday in Hall 5, we discussed about capacities and how principle-based models can be made inclusive. And it ensured that persons with disabilities are included in the decision-making of the future. The question here arises, why do we include persons with disabilities, whereas we have so many people who could be deciding the future of digital governance, and they have been deciding it arguably, and it has been functioning. As a coordinator of the Dynamic Coalition on Accessibility and Disability, I would say it might be functioning. The system might be functioning for some, but there is a very huge number. of population, well, that WHO would state that it is about 15 or 16 percent of the world population, which, considering the total world population levels at 8 or 9 billion, would be equal to the total population of the country, which is India or China. So a huge number of population is there who are not benefiting or meaningfully benefiting from the processes or the systems that our so-called perfect technologists, policy makers have evolved. Therefore, well, when Dynamic Coalition on Accessibility and Disability comes on the stage and says that if you have not been able to evolve the perfect systems, perhaps this was because you had not the right people at the decision-making tables when you were making the decisions about the future of the Internet. So it’s high time that while we evolve the future systems now, we include persons with disabilities into those decision-making. So I stop here, and we can discuss this further. Judith, over to you. Thank you.

Judith Hellerstein: Thanks so much for this. I’m going to next turn to my candidate on my left, Vajendra, with the D.C. economy.

Dr. Rajendra Pratap Gupta: Thank you, Judith. And this is a very important topic from the governance standpoint. You know that the global economy is digital, but still one-third of the people are still not connected to the Internet, which brings me to the very important point that the world GDP was $110 trillion last year. It could be $150 trillion. Just think how much difference it will make to the economy, which brings a big question to the multi-stakeholder governance model we have. The empty seat here is symbolic, there are gaps and these gaps are that our multi-stakeholder governance model is reactive, not proactive. And still knowing well that people are not connected, we have not been able to. Every year we come and see that the 2.7 billion people not connected become 2.6 billion. At this pace, it’ll take more than a decade for us to connect the people. I think when we as the IGF put the tagline of internet we want, we also want everyone to be connected to internet. I think there should be a study that think tanks should do, is the internet usage per capita and the GDP per capita. I would think that would be a good correlation. And we have to somehow look at not the multi-stakeholder governance per se, but the governance of multi-stakeholder governance. How do we govern it? What kind of issues we prioritize? I think overly we are prioritizing AI over access of internet and not having internet itself is a disability, I would say. So I think the multi-stakeholder governance models need to reset a button to look at various dimensions and KPIs of what the governance should look like, what we should deliver before the end of the decade when the SDGs come to an end by 2030. Thank you.

Judith Hellerstein: Thanks so much, Dr. Vajendra, for this. As the time is very moving quickly, we’re going to move to my right and we’re going to hear from Tatjafik Grigoryan from UNESCO.

Tatevik Grigoryan: Thanks very much. I’m here from UNESCO, I represent the Dynamic Coalition on Internet Universality Indicators. As we talk about multi-stakeholderism, these indicators are rooted in multi-stakeholder approach. These are basically indicators… So, I would like to start with the M, multi-stakeholder governance, which is one of the key pillars of this indicators, and also one of the key indicators that help countries assess their Internet performance against the pillars of human rights, openness and accessibility, and multi-stakeholder governance, and cross-cutting issues such as gender equality, safety and accessibility, and also the importance of the digital environment, and I would like to start with the M, which is also very much in line with the work that the Dynamic Coalition does. For us, multi-stakeholder participation and engagement and governance of the digital environment is not just the principle, but also, at UNESCO, it is at the heart of our actions to our activities. So now, I would like to introduce Nicolas Sperb, from Solidarity Engineering Facebook, and they are contributors to the co-leadership of Solidarity Engineering Facebook, and Nicolas is the expert in multi-stakeholder confidence and trust, and he is also the co-leader of Solidarity Engineering Facebook. So, Nicolas, what are your thoughts on the outcomes of the assessments, and also the recommendations that we put forward to support the countries, improve their digital environment, and then we encourage this maintenance of the multi-stakeholder advisory board, also, in carrying forward and implementing this policy recommendations. So, the main thing is that we encourage the multistakeholder dialogue, and we encourage it in principle, but we also facilitate this in action, and bring, convene this multi-stakeholder dialogue in this scope, and ensure that everyone, every stakeholder, is involved. And I think it’s very important that we have a multi-stakeholder engagement and that the multistakeholder group has a say around the table on these matters. This is just one example of, as we speak, within this scope of dynamic coalitions of our work where we promote and foster multistakeholder engagement to the Internet Governance, but it is very much rooted in all of our activities. Thank you very much, Judith.

Judith Hellerstein: I think we have a lot of questions and answers later, but I want to make sure we have enough time for the panellists to make their quick statements.

Olivier Crepin-Leblond: So I’ll next go to Olivier Crepin-Lamban for the D.C. on Core Internet Values. Olivier Crepin-Lamban speaking, and I’m here to speak to you about the Core Internet Values and the work of the Dynamic Coalition. So the Core Internet Values is a global medium, open to all, regardless of geography or nationality. It’s interoperable because it’s a network of networks. It doesn’t rely on a single application. It relies on open protocols, like TCPIP, like BGP. It’s free, open to all, and it’s a global medium, open to all, regardless of geography or nationality. It’s interoperable because it’s a network of networks. It’s open to all, regardless of geography or nationality. It’s free, open to all, and it’s a global medium, open to all, regardless of geography or nationality. It’s free of any centralised control, except for the needed co-ordination for the domain name system, the addressing, if you want, of the Internet and the IP addresses. It’s end-to-end, so the traffic goes from one end of the network to the other end of the network unhindered. It’s free, open to all, and it’s a global medium, open to all, regardless of geography or nationality. it’s robust and it’s reliable. But of course, that was a while ago when the Internet was created. A number of these values are being eroded, things are changing on the Internet, and so we’re tracking the change that we’re seeing happening on the Internet. Earlier this week, on Wednesday, we had a workshop that also looked at artificial intelligence, AI, and tried to see if we could apply core Internet values and derive from that some AI values. Very interesting discussion, it was very well attended, but one thing that did come out of the discussion was that the dynamic coalitions around this table, and in fact the ones that were in the other workshops, are all working sometimes on specific points that go on top of the core Internet values. You’ve got the Internet as the base, and other work grafts on the top of that. And so one of the things that my colleagues are not aware of now, one of the action items, is that we will be working with all of the different dynamic coalitions, one-on-one, and offering a partnership to try and see what core Internet values relate to their work, and how we can help defend their work through the core Internet values. I hope it’s a bit helpful, but I’ll be happy to answer questions later. Thank you.

Judith Hellerstein: Thanks so much, Olivier, and thanks for sticking to your time. Time is always not our friend here. Next I will go to Avri Doria, who’s going to speak for the Schools of Internet Governance.

Avri Doria: Thank you. Thank you, Judith, and thank you for chairing this session. My name is Avri Doria, and I coordinate the Dynamic Coalition on Schools and Internet Governance. We do a couple things. First of all, there are many schools that have sprung up around the world over, I guess, the last decade. Each one of them is a bottom-up affair. So what the Dynamic Coalition tries to do at the very top level is sort of offer material. offer ways to look at things, we have developed a curriculum in the past that currently needs to be updated with all the new things that he’s been talking about. We’re currently working on a document, for example, on how to sustain a school and it’s once you found one and you get some money and you have all the enthusiasm of having created one comes year three and year four and how do you keep the thing running. So we’re doing that, it’s a very interesting exercise because that’s done differently in different places in the world, depends on how you’ve got. So that’s one of the things that the Dynamic Coalition does. The schools themselves basically do several things. One, they do coursework and they look at the various topics, you know, whether it’s AI, whether it’s how IP works, whether it’s what the political dimensions of schools are, etc. So that’s one of the aspects of schools. The other aspects of schools that we help work on is what we call practica and we have practicums where you look around the multi-stakeholder world and you find there are some of us that are constantly talking, constantly participating. The, what do we call the, but anyhow, the regular victims or the regular, but most people sit there quietly and it comes from, at least it seems to come from, they never had a place to practice. They never had a place to sort of figure out how to behave, how to interject themselves. To some of us it comes natural, to many it doesn’t. So a lot of these practica are there. The third thing that we focus on is actually what one could call it the theory of multi-stakeholderism or the theory of multi-stakeholder models. A couple years ago, and it may even be true for many now, people thought there was one. multi-stakeholder model, it was the IGF model, or maybe there was one multi-stakeholder model and it was the ICANN model, or maybe there was one, and then basically so we started looking at how you come down to the next level of what does it involve to have a multi-stakeholder model? Are there levels of maturity in a multi-stakeholder model? How do you progress in developing a multi-stakeholder model? So that in a very quick, hand-wavy manner is sort of what the schools on internet governance are about, and always happy to talk about it infinitely.

Judith Hellerstein: Thanks so much, Avri, and thanks for sticking to your time. Next we’ll go to Roberto Gaetano, he’s with the DC of Interplanetary Networks, and this is they are doing internet in the space. Thank you.

Roberto Gaetano: Thank you, Judith. Yes, the DC on Interplanetary Networks, as the name suggests, is dealing with communication, interplanetary communication. Why is this different from the regular internet on earth? That is because for the distances in space that create delays in the communication and also the fact that we have widely moving nodes that can create interruptions in the communication. So basically, long story short, we have to use a different protocol that is delay and fault tolerance. So there will be some differences versus the… the regular internet. Another question is now that the way that interplanetary communication develops with the launch of space missions, for instance, with the possibility of communication to outer space and so on. Basically, what we have right now is a situation in which telecommunication operators are organization and organizations that are involved with launch of space vessels, NASA, for instance, just to name one. Those are the ones who are currently shaping up this scenario. So the problem is having also learned the lesson from the regular internet, where we had a bit in a hurry and under pressure had to develop a governance model in order to ensure that all interested stakeholders have a place in the table and can discuss how to govern the internet. In the same way, we believe that we need to develop and deploy an interplanetary internet governance model. And for instance, in these days, we are discussing and we are thinking of using, and that gives me the possibility. to advertise this booklet, which is the translation in several languages of the São Paulo Declaration of NetMundial Plus 10. We are going to be using this to develop with the community a governance model that is really multi-stakeholder, that will ensure that also stakeholders that are not completely aware of the development of the interplanetary networks, like for instance civil society or users that will be impacted, can get into the process early so that their interests and needs are represented. Thank you.

Judith Hellerstein: Thanks so much, Roberto. The last panelist we have here is Wout Denatris, and he is – no, you’re not on it, okay. So then we’ll go to our panelists of the DC Child Online Protection.

Jutta: Thank you, Judith, for giving me the floor, although I was not supposed to be a panelist, but I had prepared to give some input to this session, so we’re welcome. When it comes to multi-stakeholder collaboration, of course from the Dynamic Coalition on Children’s Rights and the Digital Environment, I need to refer to young people, and I really appreciate that we had many people around here at the IGF, many young people. We have the Dynamic Team Coalition that was engaged in our work, and we also have the Dynamic Coalition on – the Youth Coalition, let me say it in that way. I take the opportunity to refer to the General Comment No. 25 on children’s rights and the digital environment, because it And it has a whole chapter on the respect for the views of the child. And let me just quote, we did a child participation worldwide in preparation of the general command number 25. And there, the over 700 children in various languages reported that the digital environment afforded them crucial opportunities for their voices to be heard in matters that affect them. And I do think that we cannot deny with one third of all internet users worldwide are under the age of 18, though it means that they are a child in the sense of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, that we have not only give them a voice, but hear their voices and respect their views in regard of internet governance. Thank you. Thanks.

Judith Hellerstein: Thanks so much. And Jutta is also along with Marcus, the co-chairs of the Dynamic Coalition Coordinating Group of all different 30 GCs. So now we’ll move to the next step. Well, okay, Brat wants to… In the end, he decided he wanted to speak. Great.

Wout de Natris: Is it on? Yes. My apologies. I was not aware that I was on the list because I had not submitted myself, but I can, of course, speak a little bit. My name is Wouter Natris and I represent the Dynamic Coalition on Internet Standards, Security and Safety here at the IGF. And we just produced our report on post-quantum cryptography this morning, and it landed really successfully well, I think, with some of the people in the room. So that’s good to notice. Jutta, let me reflect on the future of multistakeholderism that we’re discussing and what we’ve been doing as Dynamic Coalitions as a group in the past. maybe three years by now, but certainly two and a half, is to try to organize ourselves and get ourselves better known so that people in the IGF environment understand better what we as Dynamic Coalitions are doing. And I think that from the way the people within the community look at us at this moment is different than it was three years ago, because I ran into people even on the Mac who were not even aware that Dynamic Coalitions existed, or let alone what they did. And I think that has changed. The fact that we are now reported on, for example, by the Diplo Foundation, that was not happening two years ago last year, is progress. And we have one and a half year probably before the next IGF, and how will Dynamic Coalitions present themselves in November or December 2026, when there is a new IGF anywhere in the world? We don’t know yet. I think that that is where we can make the next step, and we have time to make the next step. So what I’m advocating is that what we’ve managed to do with the DC clustering, it also brings together overarching themes. We notice that we start working on this, sort of working on the same topic from a different angle, and that allows us to make better messages, and perhaps common messages, like what you invited us to do, and thank you for that, Olivier. But also, I think that we need to have a bigger voice in the future, and what I would suggest that we try to advocate is that we have a spot in the MAG to make sure that the integration of our work becomes better known within the process, so that the clustering we have now become part of the themes. And that is something that has nothing to do with the workshop program, but it has something to do with getting the messages across of our work that we do during the whole year across in a far better and integrated way. That is something that we can discuss and organize and see if the other dynamic coalitions agree on. But it’s something that I would advocate to have a voice in the MAG so that we are at the same level and not that we’re always somewhere as an appendix on the side. And I think that would make multi-stakeholder and inter-governance far better, stronger and more influential in the future. So let me stop there and thank you for the opportunity, Jutta.

Judith Hellerstein: Thank you so much, Wout. And I’ll go over to Markus for a comment.

Marcus: Yes, thank you, Judith. You called me co-chair with Jutta of the Coordination Group. Actually we call ourselves co-facilitators, sounds less important than co-chairs. I had and very much support Wout’s comments. We really have come a long way and I think by clustering and having also the main session, we have a bigger impact. Now, whether or not a seat on the MAG will make that much difference, I’m not necessarily convinced, but we have a MAG liaison and we need to use this better, but let’s park that discussion. We can have it among ourselves. I was just going to make a minor point listening to Jutta and she pointed out that legally speaking somebody under 18 is a child, which obviously doesn’t make much sense. And I make myself here the spokesman of the Teens Dynamic Coalition who actually put forward a quite thoughtful paper saying we need to look at the ages in a different way. The UN category is youth is 18 to 35 and to be frank, a 35-year-old is a very mature youth. And it doesn’t make much sense, but we cannot change something. something that’s enshrined in a General Assembly resolution, but we can apply it maybe with more flexibility. And the Dynamic Teen Coalition, they suggest you have below 12, these are children. They fall in the category where we have to look after them. Whereas from 13 to 18, they are teenagers. Well, to 19, they are teenagers, but in most countries, when you’re 18, you’re adult. So you have different rights and responsibilities. And then they also go on, say, you know, they are young adults, young professionals, they’re people mid-career, and they are the oldies who maybe can take on a different role as mentoring. And I actually like this idea of looking at the age categories with a fresh eye. But we will not be able to change General Assembly resolutions, but I think the teens have made themselves heard, and Amrit was in various session, and he has my admiration. At his age, I would not have been able to argue so effectively and coherently. So these are my quick comments on this matter, but Jutta may have more comments because she’s a professional dealing with children and children’s rights. Thank you for listening.

Jutta: Yes, thank you, Markus. I just wanted to get into that because isn’t it also due to the opportunities that the digital environment opens up for children that they are now in this position? Because otherwise, like those teens that are under the age of 18, they could only have come to the internet accompanied by adults like we had in several years earlier on in the internet governance community. But now, with all these digital opportunities, they can take part via Zoom, for example. They can raise their voice. They can make them heard themselves. So kind of, you know, the internet. World Wide Web came up in 1989. That was the same year that the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child came up. So we have kind of parallel developments, and I’m pretty sure they are interrelated with each other. The digital technologies have opened up for children’s evolving capacities, evolving in a certainly changed way than it was beforehand.

Judith Hellerstein: Thanks so much, Jutta. And this will also go out to our next segment, which is some policy questions.

Avri Doria: Can I ask a question? If I can, I’d like to just add one thought to that. One, this is one reason why the DCs, when they started out, sort of declared a degree of independence from the MAG and the UN and its strictures, so that we wouldn’t necessarily be as bound by all the UN edicts, such as we could decide what we wanted in terms of how we were doing things and what. And two, as a street kid at 16, if anybody had told me I was a child, there would have been a battle.

Judith Hellerstein: It’s possible, but it’s only words. Yeah, no, this also leads us directly into our policy question of what policies are important in the process of enabling multi-stakeholder practices. Jutta touched on the idea of the digital ideas that we can now get the youth to engage themselves and they don’t have to come with an adult or other stuff. The teen coalition calls on the calls in the early morning and the early evening, and so they’re very active. But Vajendra, I know you wanted to make a comment on.

Dr. Rajendra Pratap Gupta: Yeah, I just wanted to add to what Marcus said, that as what I have experienced. over the decades at the DCs, I mean, this is the best model for looking at the multi-stakeholder governance. I think as Avri said, independent, flexible. I have not come across any time when anyone made a suggestion, it was thwarted or debated. Anything good, immediately accepted and acted upon. So I would actually congratulate those who facilitate the dynamic coalitions within the IGF and the Secretariat for keeping that spirit alive of change and hope along with continuity. Thank you. Yeah.

Judith Hellerstein: Thanks so much. Yeah. So who wants to, Avri, do you want to talk about that question of policies

Avri Doria: that are important in the process of enabling multi-stakeholder? Certainly. I’m always willing to talk about just about any topic, but the policy certainly within the dynamic coalitions, it’s very important that we be open and accept the whole notion that bottom up these things are dealt. Thank you for being here, Marcus. Bottom up. Bottom up. Thank you very much for reminding me where I was. But basically, that that becomes a very important part because as I was saying before, when the dynamic coalitions get constrained into a certain rules, a certain box, a certain structure is when we find that we can’t be all that dynamic. You know, having the basic rules that we have, that we have to be open, that we have to have a mailing list, that we have to be coalitions, which means we have to have people from the many stakeholder groups is a very basic set of requirements. But beyond that, as multi-stakeholder models develop, as we get beyond thinking of there being a single model, a single way to do things. It really is in the dynamic coalitions that you sort of have the crucible where you can try things, you can fail, you can come, you can succeed and such that becomes more and more a problem as things start to have the blessing of the top-down. Part of the problem with the IGF is its top-down nature. Dynamic coalitions are the one place where we get to experiment with sort of the other half of what it means to be multi-stakeholder, bottom-up multi-stakeholder models. Thanks.

Judith Hellerstein: Thanks so much. Any other coalitions want to mention something? Otherwise, we’ll go to the next question. Okay, so the next question is, how can multi-stakeholder models be further developed to make them more inclusive and accessible? And I’ll point the mic here to Dr. Shabir to talk about that.

Dr. Muhammad Shabbir: Thank you very much for that. And I’ve been listening to my fellow D.C. representatives talk about different aspects and I’ve been thinking that how best we can evolve this multi-stakeholder model that we have going up and running. And I reflected upon the suggestion that came out from Vout and then the discussion by every on the having a voice or space on the MAG by the D.C.s. And I would, for one, from the perspective of D.C.A.D., whereas I would want the multi-stakeholder model as it exists today to evolve that to include the voice of persons with disabilities on the MAG. Why so? Because this is the largest minority. that is just being made into a checkbox under the diversity umbrella. It should not be that. On the other hand, as the coordinator of Dynamic Coalition on Accessibility and Disability and one of the oldest dynamic coalitions in existence, I would argue for the argument that Avery has put forward. And that is we must guard the system that we have here within the dynamic coalitions. And that is bottom-up multi-stakeholder. We, as the coordinators of the dynamic coalitions, we are not the chairs who would give directions from the top to be implemented. We facilitate the work of the coalitions as Marcus very rightly said, that we are, Marcus and Yuta, are preferred to be recognized as facilitators of the work. Because our job is not to give directions. Our job is to give guidance, to provide resources, and to facilitate the work that community wants from us. And in that, I just was thinking that whether teens, I hear Amrit, and I am really impressed by his prowess and his argumentation at this age. But when I think of the other side of the teens with disabilities, those who do not have the right opportunities, then I need to consider that that multi-stakeholder model, so-called, needs to evolve. And it needs to be multi-stakeholder in true sense, and not just be some checkboxes here and there. Thank you.

Judith Hellerstein: Thanks so much, Dr. Shabir. I’ll go to Roberto Gaetano as he has some input.

Roberto Gaetano: Yes, Roberto Gaetano, DC Interplanetary. I have two comments on this. The first is once the former CEO of ICANN said a multi-stakeholder model has to be global and equal. And I think that this is very, very important. We cannot just have a vague representation of the stakeholders, but the model has to be global in the sense that those stakeholders have to represent different geopolitical situations. And equal, the stakeholder groups have to participate on equal footing. I think that this is something that is very important. It’s actually the band that has played in Music Night takes the name GEMS, which is exactly the acronym for Global Equal Multi-Stakeholder. So I think that we have to, one thing that we have to do is to make sure that whenever we speak about the multi-stakeholder model, we are very attentive on the fact that it is global and equal. There’s one other point that came, by the way, also in one of the sessions that I have attended. Within a stakeholder group, we have to make sure that that there’s not a subgroup that monopolizes the discussion, that monopolizes the presence. For instance, one of the most various, more diverse stakeholder group is probably civil society. But civil society comes in different shapes, in different forms. There are different types of stakeholder that belong to the bigger group of civil society. And we have to make sure that also, within the stakeholder group, the different types of stakeholder are represented. Thank you.

Judith Hellerstein: Thanks so much, Roberto. We have two more quick comments. One from Roberto, and I’m going to keep it short, because we want to make sure we have time for questions from the audience. And then, Wow. Thank you. I have a question, not question, actually a reflection back on the governance and the role of DCs, what we do.

Dr. Rajendra Pratap Gupta: So it should not be just the noise that some makes, and I’m not castigating or putting some people in the corner, but actually on the impact we create. I mean, if you look at the world’s work on standards, if you look at our friends’ work on the core internet values and others, these are substantive original works in contribution to the knowledge of domain of internet. I think that should be the primary focus. I’m not very, I would say, in favor of seats or titles. I’m in favor of original substantive works that adds to the knowledge for this domain of internet that creates an impact on ground. So I think we’ll have to look at today as 20 years of IGF, what it does. is our stated position as DCs on the issue of environment, because everything we do today in the digital economy has a carbon footprint. And we know global warming and what it’s doing to us. Second, what’s happening on the job side? Like as digital economy, we created project Creators. How do you use technology for jobs? Every time you open the news, you see that 30 million jobs will be lost today, what I read in the morning. So it’s scary at times. And I think this will boomerang into a huge mental health issue for the world. So we’ll have to look at DCs. And how are we addressing these issues to create an impact? A seat on the mag or not will not make much of a difference. But what we make as a difference to the digital economy is going to be measured in terms of what we have added to the domain. I think this is where it matters for us to be impactful. Thank you.

Judith Hellerstein: Thanks so much. Wout?

Wout de Natris: Yes, thank you, Judith. Whether we have a seat on the mag or not is not the real topic, I think. I think that what we’ve shown in the past two years is that we’ve learned from each other what we’re doing. That is one. That we’ll probably be able to integrate more because of the clusters and that way become more impactful. When I think of the IGF, just going back to 2009 when I visited my first IGF, I went to as many sessions as I could. And I was so impressed with the brilliant people giving brilliant solutions to topics. But some of them still have not been solved. So we’re 16 years down the line and still sometimes discussing the same sort of things. Maybe we call it AI now. But if you look one step up, it’s the same issue. In other words, we have the people to make a difference. Except somehow the integration of that message is not coming across in the places where it needs to land. And I think that that is the challenge of whether we get a five-year or a 10-year or an eternal mandate for the IGF. It is about. bringing people to the table that decide, I think I have to make a difference. And that will be the main challenge that the IGF faces, where it has to move from a talk shop to an influencing position. And if we can manage to do that, then we’ll change the world. And that’s why I advocate that our outcomes as dynamic coalitions should be heard better. And that starts with having more influence on the organization of the IGF, because that’s where we bring our message across. And Avri, just to come back to one of your comments, I think yesterday, I was not really aware what you guys were doing, but you make actual difference how you coordinate on topics and that sort of thing. So that should be heard. That’s not that someone comes to tell you, I want you to do this now, but that you send your message, we’re making a difference in the internet governance world. And I think that that is a sort of message that we need to start to share actively. And we have made that start and whatever, however, we continue. But it’s something we need to discuss in our group, like Marco said, internally, and then set the steps we need to take. So that’s how I want to advocate the IGF, the dynamic coalitions, and then I’ll shut up because I said what I wanted to say.

Judith Hellerstein: Thanks so much, Wout. We want to go for a Q&A. And so there’s a mic set up over there if in person want to stand up for that. I’m just going to check of my colleague, because we might have some interventions online, so. Thanks, Judith.

Lubos Kuklis: Currently, we have 23 people taking part online and following us from everywhere around the globe. And there was a discussion going on, it was raised the attention by Carlos Alfonso on an development on the multi-stakeholder structure of the internet governance in Brazil. There’s a lively discussion going on, links and further information are provided. And there was a question raised by Emmanuel Orok from Uganda, who’d like to know more about the concept of a dynamic coalition. We are talking about what dynamic coalitions are doing and what they’re delivering and output and so on. But he wants to learn more about the concept and how to engage as an individual in a dynamic coalition.

Judith Hellerstein: Olivier? Yeah. And then Yuta. Yeah. Thank you, Judith. It’s Olivier speaking.

Olivier Crepin-Leblond: I’d be happy to answer that, because just a couple of days ago, I was asked a similar question. And the question I was asked is, what is a dynamic coalition? Why is it dynamic? Does it have a start, a beginning, an end? What do you people work on? Are these projects? Are these ongoing things? And the answer that I provided was potentially maybe one of many different answers, because we are so busy. We are so busy. We are so busy. We are so busy. We are so busy. We are so busy. We are so busy. We are so busy. We are so busy. We are so busy. We are so busy. We are so busy. We are so busy. And the answer that I provided was potentially maybe one of many different answers, because we are so many different coalitions, and so we deal with so many different topics. But the dynamism of a dynamic coalition is one that actually advances with times. It deals with issues that are related to the internet that is changing. And so the issues that we might have been working on or that we were focusing on a few years ago might be a bit, they might have evolved since. And in fact, for some, thanks to the work of that coalition, the issues have advanced. It’s dynamic because it’s moving, but it’s also open. And I think maybe that’s one of the things we’ve not actually emphasized enough. They are all open. You don’t need to pay a subscription or to queue up or to be co-opted into it by some panel that will check whether you’re worthy of being in that coalition or not. It’s actually open to everyone, and all of them are open. They’re all very friendly. They are run by people who have years of experience in trying to get more people involved. And this is one of the big difficulties we’ve had. I’ll be very frank, is actually attracting more people to go and join because, yeah, there is intersessional work going on. There’s a lot of work needed. We’re not dealing with simple issues that can be fixed in a matter of seconds. But it’s also exciting because it kind of puts this bridge between the different IGFs. It’s not just something that happens once a year. It’s something that happens all the time and that continues to grow. So that’s what I wanted to say about it.

Judith Hellerstein: We have a quick one from Utah and then we have Shabira and you.

Jutta: Yes, because we all have been approached over the last four days by people who wanted to join a dynamic collision. It’s really useful to have this booth in the IGF village where everybody can meet us. But still, when it comes to how do I get to become a member of a dynamic collision, it’s a bit tricky. You go to the website, you need to have a look on the intersessional part, even understanding that it’s intersessional work the dynamic collisions are doing is a bit difficult. But to make it short, everybody can subscribe to the mailing list of the dynamic collisions to get informed about the work the dynamic collision, the respective dynamic collision is doing. Secondly, you can apply to become a member. It’s just saying my organization or me as an individual, I want to be a member of this dynamic collision. Then you will be listed in the list of stakeholders within that dynamic collision. And these are the first two steps, and then it’s up to each of the individual dynamic collisions to set up how they work together. Some meet on a regular basis, other meet only occasionally. Some produce a joint report, some gather information of what their members have been doing in regard of the objectives of the dynamic collision. So that is different across the dynamic collisions. Thank you.

Judith Hellerstein: Thanks so much. And Dr. Shpil, I know you wanted to make a comment as well.

Dr. Muhammad Shabbir: I think Yuta and Olivia have best described, so I’ll go.

Judith Hellerstein: Thank, and Al-Avri.

Avri Doria: Yeah, quick thing, I’m really glad you put it. And just to sort of marry it to something that Waud has been saying, perhaps we’ve also can take on an action for the coordination group that says, we have to make that more visible. We have to make that something easier for people to find and put it out. So perhaps we should give ourselves sort of, after this is all over and we’ve rested, indeed make ourselves more visible by making that easier for people to find and do it.

Jutta: We had a meeting with the MEC chair yesterday, the day before yesterday, agreeing exactly on that approach.

Judith Hellerstein: Yes, okay, so now I know our colleague over there has been waiting patiently by the mic. So I will go to him. Please tell us your name and your organization.

Audience: Thank you, so my name is Kjetil Kjernsmo. I’m kind of unaffiliated, I represent only myself. I have three assumptions or perhaps even observations. And one of them is that the power of internet governance is not in this room. It is chiefly with big tech. The second thing is that I was sort of a part of the global digital compact process. And I noticed there were no challenges to multi-stakeholderism in there. Whereas digital commons were completely removed, even though there were many excellent contributions in a dedicated deep dive. And the third thing is that polycentrism, which is part of the digital commons narrative, has been used by humanity for thousands of years. and there is a rich theory and a rich practice. So aren’t we trying to reinvent the wheel here? Shouldn’t we be moving towards polycentrism rather than multi-stakeholderism? Thank you.

Dr. Rajendra Pratap Gupta: Yeah, so very right intervention. And I think if you heard my statement, the issue is not with multi-stakeholder governance. The issue is governance of multi-stakeholder governance. I think as we see the world today, it is small number of large companies that drive the internet rather than large number of small companies. And that’s the difference we have to make. And I think it’s not reinventing the wheel. We should first break the wheel and create something different. And that is what the flexibility we all have in this room to speak our mind and to work towards it. And luckily no one stops us. I mean, our reports have always come out based on inputs given by people from 60, 70 countries, and we have released them here at IGF stating that this is the way to go. What Vau told us, we should not start appreciating a problem over time. We should try to solve it. And I think that collectively we have to start. Question is when? The time is now. We are already late.

Judith Hellerstein: Thanks so much. And Avri?

Avri Doria: Yeah, just one quick thing. I don’t think anybody is ignoring any of the historical. I think there’s a lot of admission that multi-stakeholder models have evolved from previous models, that there have been models throughout history that have given us the ideas that we’re building on. So it’s really not an ignoring history. It’s sort of, there’s a lot of parts of history that sort of had their moment and then got forgotten. And how do we take what was really valuable in those and sort of incorporate it in sort of the things that are being done now? And totally agree with you. We have to use what we’ve got here to indeed make more of an impression. on those that do hold the power at the moment. So really don’t disagree with anything except that we should use old words instead of new words.

Judith Hellerstein: Wow, make it quick.

Wout de Natris: I will. In internet security that I reported I’ve written about five years ago now, we identified that it’s about the tragic of the commons. The internet is sort of from everybody despite those five, six, seven or eight major companies, but it’s everybody’s. So when it’s everybody’s, nobody cares at some point whether it’s secure or not because somebody else will do it for me. And I think that that is not reinventing the wheel, it’s going back to the very fundamentals of how things once started thousands of years ago. And we’ve sort of forgot that lesson.

Judith Hellerstein: Thank you so much. Dr. Shabir, real quick, I wanna get you.

Dr. Muhammad Shabbir: Yes, thank you very much, Judith. And since I have the notice from the moderator, so I’ll be quick without. Power politics is my subject as a student of international relations and we all know it is not equally distributed. And through the centuries it has not been and it would never be. Power that be would not voluntarily give the equal distribution of it to anyone. So while we may not have the power to change things at our will in this room, we do have the power in this room to influence things. And that’s what we are doing. Dynamic Coalition on Accessibility and Disability is trying to make the internet and internet governance spaces equal for people with disabilities. And that’s where the power of our dynamic coalitions, all our dynamic coalitions comes. We have the power of the people which cannot be taken away from us. Thank you.

Judith Hellerstein: Thanks so much. Let me check with our online. Do you have any questions online? Okay, so we can go to the gentleman over there.

Audience: Okay, thanks, thanks. Give me the floor. I’m Henry Wang from Singapore Internet Governance Forum, so S-G-I-G-F, and also I’m the co-founder for Lingo.ai. So yes, for the last 20 years, the power is not in the room. It’s controlled, dominated by the large companies, definitely, but for the next 20 years, the power will be in this room. Okay, it’s not because we are discussing, we’re talking about that. It’s because of the dynamic of the internet. The protocols are evolving, so the protocols for the people are coming, and not only coming, it’s already invented, and it’s ready to be deployed for the power of people. So why the large company dominate for the last 20 years, even after IGF was established? Because the protocols lead to the centralization of our data, and also lead to the centralization of our infrastructure, but now it’s different. So for the next 20 years, the infrastructure will be decentralized by the D-PIN network. It can be built by the community with space ground integration network, with mesh network to be built by people, not necessarily by centralized carriers. That’s on the infrastructure level. On the application level. The data currently centralized in large companies will be decentralized and by protocols like solid, like MetaLife. It will be controlled by every users. So yeah, so the day is coming. So a dynamic, I mean, coalition will play an important role together with NRIS.

Judith Hellerstein: Thank you so much, Henry. We have to have one more quick question and then we’ll go to the panelists. It’s maybe like in my comments. Could you introduce yourself, please? You just need not to, it’s on.

Audience: It’s okay. Yep. Thank you very much for all panelists. My name is Vasiliy Zudin. I represent the Center for Global IT Cooperation, Russian NGO, which actively works within ITU and IJF formats. And I would like to say many thanks for this really interesting panels and the main idea that dynamic coalition is very important and appreciated in the world. In Russia, we have IJF forum, youth forum, and this June, they hosted the first global digital forum, which bringing together representatives from technical communities, experts, society, and government from more than 100 countries, including high level of UN and ITU representatives. In this case, we invite the dynamic coalition to collaborate with us. And so the main thought and the main idea, let’s work together. Thank you very much for your dialogue. Thank you.

Judith Hellerstein: Thank you so much. We have, if you can make your answers short, because I want to go to the wrap to give you a time or maybe best try to answer the question along with your 30 seconds of wrap up.

Jutta: And so I will go to Utah for. society organization we are improving on not only making the children’s rights heard but and their voices heard but also their rights to not only making the children’s rights heard but and their voices heard but also their rights to be respected. Thank you. Thank you. Dr. Shabir, 30 seconds. Yes, thank you. Very

Dr. Muhammad Shabbir: difficult so I would just go directly to the concluding statement that I have. So Dynamic Coalition on Accessibility and Disability is stands ready to work with our fellow dynamic coalitions and there are number of subjects that one can one can work with. If we want the people to use the internet meaningfully we need to not just think only about those 2.7 billion who are not connected but 1.5 billion people who may be connected maybe in a well-developed country may have state-of-the-art devices with the high-speed internet but still be unable to use the internet and I invite you to think about that situation and put yourselves in that what would you do if you were in that situation. I rest my

Judith Hellerstein: case. Thank you. Dr. Vick. Thanks very much. I just wanted to reiterate that for the UNESCO Internet Universality concept that is grounded in Rome principles A being accessibility and M being multi-stakeholder participation and governance is UNESCO’s official position endorsed by 194 member states which we do advocate for and we do reinforce on the ground too and it is very much grounded in other processes and activities that UNESCO carries on and this is this has been our position and we continue working so engaged the diverse stakeholders on the ground and yes for us this is the reality, this is the present and we will continue.

Avri Doria: Thank you so much within the dynamic coalition on schools and in terms of making a difference from the full schools and in terms of making a difference from the full schools perspective we have seen our students from the various schools going into industry, going into all the institutions and the association and there really is a concept of making the change, making the difference one classroom at a time, one student at a time. I meet them all the time and they are pushing the values we try to

Judith Hellerstein: convince them of. Thanks so much Avri Roberto. Yes first of all what is the

Roberto Gaetano: value for for us as dynamic coalition on interplanetary network to work with the other dynamic coalitions is that in order to to build our model of governance, we can use the experience of all the other groups, and that is very good. On the other hand, what we can bring to the dynamic coalitions is to add another dimension, that means the ability of further developing the governance model to apply that to situations that are not part of the ordinary Internet.

Judith Hellerstein: Thanks so much.

Wout de Natris: Yes, thank you. On behalf of the Dynamic Coalition Internet Standards, Security and Safety, I would say that it’s a disgrace that many companies have still not deployed Internet standards that are sometimes there for 20 years that would secure us immediately. So every government and big company around the world has to start procuring their ICT secure by design, because that’s an economic incentive that won’t be ignored. On Dynamic Coalitions, let’s rock the world in 2026 and make sure that we’re better heard. So thank you for this session, because we really said what needed to be said.

Judith Hellerstein: Thanks so much for everyone for coming to this session, and please come to our booth, and that’s where you could learn more about us. So again, thanks for coming. Thank you. Thank you.

Agreement points

Dynamic Coalitions should maintain bottom-up, flexible governance structure

Speakers

– Dr. Muhammad Shabbir
– Avri Doria
– Dr. Rajendra Pratap Gupta

Arguments

Dynamic Coalitions function as facilitators rather than top-down directors, providing guidance and resources

Dynamic Coalitions should maintain independence from MAG and UN strictures to remain flexible and bottom-up

Dynamic Coalitions should focus on creating substantive original work and impact rather than seeking titles or seats

Summary

All speakers agree that Dynamic Coalitions work best when they maintain their independent, bottom-up structure with coordinators acting as facilitators rather than directors, prioritizing substantive work over formal recognition

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Multi-stakeholder governance must be truly inclusive in practice, not just principle

Speakers

– Dr. Muhammad Shabbir
– Roberto Gaetano
– Judith Hellerstein

Arguments

Persons with disabilities represent 15-16% of world population but are excluded from decision-making processes that affect them

Multi-stakeholder models must be global and equal, with stakeholder groups participating on equal footing

Multiple Dynamic Coalitions work together to ensure inclusive multi-stakeholder governance in practice, not just principle

Summary

Speakers agree that current multi-stakeholder models often fail to achieve true inclusivity and that meaningful participation from all stakeholder groups, including marginalized communities, is essential

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights

Digital technologies have transformed participation opportunities for traditionally excluded groups

Speakers

– Jutta
– Judith Hellerstein

Arguments

Digital environment opens new opportunities for children and youth to participate directly without adult accompaniment

Digital technologies enable direct youth participation in internet governance without adult accompaniment

Summary

Both speakers recognize that digital platforms have fundamentally changed how young people can participate in internet governance, enabling direct engagement without traditional barriers

Topics

Human rights | Sociocultural

Dynamic Coalitions need better visibility and accessibility for potential participants

Speakers

– Wout de Natris
– Avri Doria
– Olivier Crepin-Leblond

Arguments

Dynamic Coalitions have improved visibility and coordination through clustering approach over past 2-3 years

Dynamic Coalitions need better visibility and easier pathways for people to find and join them

Dynamic Coalitions are open to all, require no subscription or approval process, and welcome new members

Summary

All speakers acknowledge that while Dynamic Coalitions are open and welcoming, they need to improve their visibility and make it easier for people to understand how to participate

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Similar viewpoints

Both recognize that internet governance power is concentrated in large technology companies rather than being distributed through multi-stakeholder processes

Speakers

– Dr. Rajendra Pratap Gupta
– Audience

Arguments

Small number of large companies drive internet rather than large number of small companies

Power in internet governance currently lies with big tech companies, not in IGF discussions

Topics

Economic | Legal and regulatory

Both advocate for more nuanced understanding of youth participation in internet governance, recognizing that different age groups have different capabilities and needs

Speakers

– Marcus
– Jutta

Arguments

Age categories need fresh perspective – children under 12, teenagers 13-18, and various adult categories have different needs

One-third of internet users worldwide are under 18 and deserve voice in internet governance

Topics

Human rights | Sociocultural

Both recognize that the challenge lies not in the concept of multi-stakeholder governance but in how power dynamics actually operate within these systems

Speakers

– Dr. Muhammad Shabbir
– Dr. Rajendra Pratap Gupta

Arguments

Power holders will not voluntarily redistribute power equally, but Dynamic Coalitions have power to influence

Real issue is governance of multi-stakeholder governance, not the model itself

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights

Unexpected consensus

Dynamic Coalitions as experimental spaces for multi-stakeholder models

Speakers

– Avri Doria
– Wout de Natris
– Dr. Rajendra Pratap Gupta

Arguments

Dynamic Coalitions should maintain independence from MAG and UN strictures to remain flexible and bottom-up

Dynamic Coalitions should advocate for representation on MAG to better integrate their work into IGF processes

Dynamic Coalitions should focus on creating substantive original work and impact rather than seeking titles or seats

Explanation

Despite disagreeing on whether Dynamic Coalitions should seek formal representation, all speakers unexpectedly agree that Dynamic Coalitions serve as crucial experimental spaces for developing and testing multi-stakeholder approaches, representing a unique value within the IGF ecosystem

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Technology as both solution and challenge to inclusivity

Speakers

– Dr. Muhammad Shabbir
– Jutta
– Audience

Arguments

Connected individuals with disabilities may still be unable to meaningfully use the internet despite having access

Digital environment opens new opportunities for children and youth to participate directly without adult accompaniment

Future internet protocols will enable decentralization of data and infrastructure, shifting power to people

Explanation

Speakers unexpectedly converge on recognizing that technology simultaneously creates new barriers and new opportunities for participation, requiring nuanced approaches rather than simple technological solutions

Topics

Human rights | Infrastructure | Legal and regulatory

Overall assessment

Summary

Speakers demonstrate strong consensus on the need for genuine inclusivity in multi-stakeholder governance, the value of Dynamic Coalitions as bottom-up experimental spaces, and the transformative potential of digital technologies for participation. They agree on fundamental challenges with current power structures while maintaining optimism about the potential for change through collaborative work.

Consensus level

High level of consensus on core principles and challenges, with tactical disagreements about implementation approaches. This suggests a mature understanding of multi-stakeholder governance issues and strong foundation for collaborative action, though strategic decisions about formal representation and power-seeking remain contentious.

Different viewpoints

Dynamic Coalitions representation in MAG

Speakers

– Wout de Natris
– Avri Doria
– Dr. Muhammad Shabbir

Arguments

Dynamic Coalitions should advocate for representation on MAG to better integrate their work into IGF processes

Dynamic Coalitions should maintain independence from MAG and UN strictures to remain flexible and bottom-up

Dynamic Coalitions function as facilitators rather than top-down directors, providing guidance and resources

Summary

Wout advocates for Dynamic Coalitions to have a seat on the MAG to gain more influence and better integrate their work, while Avri argues for maintaining independence from MAG and UN constraints to preserve their bottom-up, flexible nature. Dr. Shabbir supports the facilitator model that emphasizes guidance rather than top-down direction.

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Priority focus for internet governance

Speakers

– Dr. Rajendra Pratap Gupta
– Dr. Muhammad Shabbir

Arguments

AI is being prioritized over basic internet access, when lack of internet itself constitutes a disability

Connected individuals with disabilities may still be unable to meaningfully use the internet despite having access

Summary

Dr. Gupta argues that basic internet connectivity should be prioritized over AI development, viewing lack of internet as a disability itself. Dr. Shabbir focuses on a different aspect – that even connected individuals with disabilities may be unable to meaningfully use the internet, suggesting the issue goes beyond mere connectivity.

Topics

Development | Human rights

Approach to creating change and impact

Speakers

– Dr. Rajendra Pratap Gupta
– Wout de Natris

Arguments

Dynamic Coalitions should focus on creating substantive original work and impact rather than seeking titles or seats

Dynamic Coalitions should advocate for representation on MAG to better integrate their work into IGF processes

Summary

Dr. Gupta emphasizes that impact should come from substantive work and knowledge creation rather than formal positions or titles, while Wout believes that having formal representation and voice in governance structures is necessary to create real influence and change.

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Unexpected differences

Definition and scope of disability in digital context

Speakers

– Dr. Rajendra Pratap Gupta
– Dr. Muhammad Shabbir

Arguments

AI is being prioritized over basic internet access, when lack of internet itself constitutes a disability

Connected individuals with disabilities may still be unable to meaningfully use the internet despite having access

Explanation

This disagreement is unexpected because both speakers advocate for inclusion and accessibility, yet they have different conceptualizations of what constitutes digital disability. Dr. Gupta broadens the definition to include anyone without internet access, while Dr. Shabbir focuses on traditional disability categories and their specific challenges with internet usage even when connected.

Topics

Human rights | Development

Historical precedent vs innovation in governance models

Speakers

– Avri Doria
– Audience

Arguments

Students from various schools are entering industry and institutions, creating change one classroom at a time

Power in internet governance currently lies with big tech companies, not in IGF discussions

Explanation

The audience member’s suggestion to move toward polycentrism rather than multi-stakeholderism represents an unexpected challenge to the fundamental premise of the panel. While Avri acknowledges historical models, she defends the evolution and adaptation of multi-stakeholder approaches rather than abandoning them entirely.

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Overall assessment

Summary

The main areas of disagreement center around governance structure (formal representation vs. independence), priority setting (connectivity vs. accessibility vs. AI), and approaches to creating impact (substantive work vs. structural influence). There were also conceptual disagreements about disability definitions and governance model evolution.

Disagreement level

Moderate disagreement level with constructive tensions rather than fundamental conflicts. The disagreements reflect different strategic approaches to achieving similar goals of inclusive, effective internet governance. These tensions are healthy for the multi-stakeholder process as they represent diverse perspectives on how to improve current systems while maintaining core values of openness and inclusivity.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both recognize that internet governance power is concentrated in large technology companies rather than being distributed through multi-stakeholder processes

Speakers

– Dr. Rajendra Pratap Gupta
– Audience

Arguments

Small number of large companies drive internet rather than large number of small companies

Power in internet governance currently lies with big tech companies, not in IGF discussions

Topics

Economic | Legal and regulatory

Both advocate for more nuanced understanding of youth participation in internet governance, recognizing that different age groups have different capabilities and needs

Speakers

– Marcus
– Jutta

Arguments

Age categories need fresh perspective – children under 12, teenagers 13-18, and various adult categories have different needs

One-third of internet users worldwide are under 18 and deserve voice in internet governance

Topics

Human rights | Sociocultural

Both recognize that the challenge lies not in the concept of multi-stakeholder governance but in how power dynamics actually operate within these systems

Speakers

– Dr. Muhammad Shabbir
– Dr. Rajendra Pratap Gupta

Arguments

Power holders will not voluntarily redistribute power equally, but Dynamic Coalitions have power to influence

Real issue is governance of multi-stakeholder governance, not the model itself

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights

Key takeaways

Multi-stakeholder governance must evolve to be truly inclusive, particularly for persons with disabilities who represent 15-16% of the global population but are largely excluded from decision-making processes

Dynamic Coalitions have successfully improved their visibility and coordination over the past 2-3 years through clustering approaches and should maintain their bottom-up, flexible structure

The digital divide remains a critical issue with one-third of the global population still unconnected, limiting economic potential and requiring more proactive rather than reactive governance approaches

Power in internet governance currently lies with big tech companies rather than multi-stakeholder forums, but Dynamic Coalitions retain the power to influence change

Internet security standards that have existed for 20 years remain undeployed by many companies, requiring governments and organizations to procure ICT that is secure by design

Children and youth participation in internet governance has been enhanced by digital technologies, allowing direct participation without adult accompaniment

Multi-stakeholder models must be global and equal, ensuring stakeholder groups participate on equal footing and diverse subgroups within each stakeholder category are represented

Resolutions and action items

Dynamic Coalitions coordination group to work on making coalition membership and participation pathways more visible and accessible to newcomers

Dynamic Coalition on Core Internet Values to work one-on-one with other dynamic coalitions to identify partnerships and defend their work through core internet values

Dynamic Coalitions to continue clustering approach and consider advocating for representation on the MAG to better integrate their work into IGF processes

Dynamic Coalition on Internet Standards, Security and Safety to continue advocating for secure-by-design ICT procurement by governments and companies

All Dynamic Coalitions to focus on creating substantive original work and measurable impact rather than seeking titles or formal positions

Dynamic Coalitions to prepare for stronger presence and influence at the 2026 IGF

Unresolved issues

Whether Dynamic Coalitions should seek formal representation on the MAG or maintain their current independent structure

How to effectively address the governance of multi-stakeholder governance itself, not just the model

How to balance maintaining Dynamic Coalitions’ bottom-up flexibility while increasing their influence on decision-making processes

How to better integrate Dynamic Coalition outputs into places where decisions are actually made

How to address environmental impact of the digital economy and job displacement from technology advancement

Whether to move toward polycentrism rather than multi-stakeholderism as suggested by audience member

How to ensure meaningful participation of persons with disabilities beyond tokenistic checkbox inclusion

Suggested compromises

Maintaining Dynamic Coalitions’ independence while improving their integration with IGF processes through better coordination rather than formal MAG representation

Applying age categories with more flexibility – recognizing different needs of children under 12, teenagers 13-18, and various adult categories while working within existing UN frameworks

Balancing the need for Dynamic Coalitions to maintain their experimental, bottom-up nature while also seeking greater influence and visibility in internet governance

Using existing MAG liaison relationships more effectively rather than seeking new formal positions

Focusing on substantive impact and original contributions while also working to improve structural representation and influence

The system might be functioning for some, but there is a very huge number of population, well, that WHO would state that it is about 15 or 16 percent of the world population, which, considering the total world population levels at 8 or 9 billion, would be equal to the total population of the country, which is India or China. So a huge number of population is there who are not benefiting or meaningfully benefiting from the processes or the systems that our so-called perfect technologists, policy makers have evolved.

Speaker

Dr. Muhammad Shabbir

Reason

This comment powerfully reframes the disability inclusion debate by using concrete numbers to illustrate the massive scale of exclusion. By comparing 15-16% of the global population to the entire populations of India or China, it makes the abstract concept of disability inclusion tangible and urgent.

Impact

This comment established a foundational argument that resonated throughout the discussion, with multiple speakers later referencing the need for genuine inclusion rather than tokenism. It shifted the conversation from theoretical discussions about governance to concrete recognition of systemic exclusion.

Our multi-stakeholder governance model is reactive, not proactive. And still knowing well that people are not connected, we have not been able to… Every year we come and see that the 2.7 billion people not connected become 2.6 billion. At this pace, it’ll take more than a decade for us to connect the people… I think overly we are prioritizing AI over access of internet and not having internet itself is a disability.

Speaker

Dr. Rajendra Pratap Gupta

Reason

This comment introduces a critical systemic critique by distinguishing between reactive and proactive governance, and challenges current priority-setting by suggesting that AI discussions overshadow basic connectivity issues. The phrase ‘not having internet itself is a disability’ creates a powerful conceptual bridge.

Impact

This comment introduced a meta-level critique of governance effectiveness and shifted the discussion toward questioning fundamental priorities. It influenced later discussions about the need for Dynamic Coalitions to focus on substantive impact rather than procedural improvements.

The power of internet governance is not in this room. It is chiefly with big tech… Shouldn’t we be moving towards polycentrism rather than multi-stakeholderism?

Speaker

Kjetil Kjernsmo (audience member)

Reason

This comment directly challenges the fundamental premise of the entire discussion by questioning whether multi-stakeholder governance is even the right approach. It introduces polycentrism as an alternative framework and forces participants to confront the reality of where actual power lies.

Impact

This intervention created the most significant turning point in the discussion, forcing multiple panelists to defend and reframe their work. It elevated the conversation from operational improvements to fundamental questions about power structures and governance models.

Power that be would not voluntarily give the equal distribution of it to anyone. So while we may not have the power to change things at our will in this room, we do have the power in this room to influence things. And that’s what we are doing… We have the power of the people which cannot be taken away from us.

Speaker

Dr. Muhammad Shabbir

Reason

This response to the power critique provides a nuanced acknowledgment of power realities while articulating a theory of influence-based change. It reframes the Dynamic Coalitions’ work from attempting to gain formal power to exercising ‘people power’ through influence.

Impact

This comment provided a philosophical foundation for the Dynamic Coalitions’ work that other speakers built upon, helping to resolve the tension created by the power critique while maintaining the legitimacy of their efforts.

The issue is not with multi-stakeholder governance. The issue is governance of multi-stakeholder governance… We should first break the wheel and create something different.

Speaker

Dr. Rajendra Pratap Gupta

Reason

This comment introduces a crucial distinction between the concept of multi-stakeholder governance and how it’s actually governed, suggesting that the meta-governance structure needs fundamental reform rather than incremental improvement.

Impact

This reframing influenced the discussion by suggesting that the problem isn’t the multi-stakeholder model itself but how it’s implemented and managed, leading to more nuanced discussions about structural reforms.

We have one and a half year probably before the next IGF… what I would suggest that we try to advocate is that we have a spot in the MAG to make sure that the integration of our work becomes better known within the process… getting the messages across of our work that we do during the whole year across in a far better and integrated way.

Speaker

Wout de Natris

Reason

This comment shifts the discussion from abstract principles to concrete institutional reform proposals, introducing specific actionable steps for improving Dynamic Coalition influence within existing structures.

Impact

This proposal sparked a debate about whether institutional integration or independence is more valuable, with Avri Doria defending the bottom-up independence of Dynamic Coalitions. It created a productive tension about strategy and tactics.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally shaped the discussion by creating multiple layers of analysis – from operational improvements to systemic critiques to philosophical foundations. The conversation evolved from initial presentations about individual Dynamic Coalition work to deeper questions about power, effectiveness, and alternative governance models. The audience intervention about polycentrism served as a crucial catalyst, forcing participants to defend and refine their approaches while acknowledging real limitations. The discussion ultimately became more honest and nuanced, moving beyond promotional presentations to genuine engagement with fundamental challenges facing multi-stakeholder governance in the digital age.

Study on the correlation between internet usage per capita and GDP per capita

Speaker

Dr. Rajendra Pratap Gupta

Explanation

This research would help demonstrate the economic impact of internet connectivity and support arguments for prioritizing internet access as a development issue

How to sustain internet governance schools beyond the initial years of operation

Speaker

Avri Doria

Explanation

The Dynamic Coalition on Schools and Internet Governance is currently working on a document addressing this challenge, as many schools struggle with sustainability in years three and four after initial enthusiasm wanes

Development of governance models for interplanetary internet that include all stakeholders from the beginning

Speaker

Roberto Gaetano

Explanation

As interplanetary communication develops, there’s a need to establish inclusive governance structures early, rather than retrofitting governance as happened with the terrestrial internet

How to apply core Internet values to derive AI values

Speaker

Olivier Crepin-Leblond

Explanation

This emerged from a workshop discussion and represents an important area for developing ethical frameworks for AI based on established internet principles

How to better integrate Dynamic Coalition work into IGF themes and processes

Speaker

Wout de Natris

Explanation

There’s a need to move from being an ‘appendix on the side’ to having better integration and influence within the IGF structure to make their work more impactful

How to make Dynamic Coalition membership and participation processes more visible and accessible

Speaker

Avri Doria (responding to online question from Emmanuel Orok)

Explanation

Many people are interested in joining Dynamic Coalitions but find it difficult to understand how to engage, suggesting need for clearer pathways to participation

Research on addressing the digital divide for persons with disabilities who may be connected but unable to meaningfully use the internet

Speaker

Dr. Muhammad Shabbir

Explanation

This addresses the 1.5 billion people who may have internet access and devices but still cannot effectively use the internet due to accessibility barriers

How to move from polycentrism to multi-stakeholderism in internet governance

Speaker

Kjetil Kjernsmo (audience member)

Explanation

This challenges whether the current multi-stakeholder approach is the best model, suggesting that polycentric governance models used throughout history might be more appropriate

How to address the environmental impact and carbon footprint of the digital economy

Speaker

Dr. Rajendra Pratap Gupta

Explanation

As the digital economy grows, there’s a need to understand and address its environmental consequences in the context of global warming

How to address job displacement and mental health impacts from digital transformation

Speaker

Dr. Rajendra Pratap Gupta

Explanation

The potential loss of millions of jobs due to digital transformation could create significant mental health challenges that need to be addressed

Summary

This panel discussion focused on incorporating human rights considerations into AI risk management practices, bringing together perspectives from industry, civil society, and multilateral organizations. The session was organized by the Global Network Initiative (GNI), which works at the intersection of technology and human rights, particularly when companies face government requests that may impact freedom of expression or privacy rights.

Company representatives from Google and Telenor Group emphasized that successful human rights integration in AI requires top-level management commitment and comprehensive governance structures. Both organizations highlighted that their AI principles build upon existing commitments to UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and GNI frameworks. They stressed the importance of operationalizing these principles through specific processes, training, and risk assessment procedures that embed human rights considerations throughout the AI development lifecycle.

The UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, through their BTEC project, presented findings on the shared responsibility between companies and states in protecting human rights in AI deployment. They noted that AI technology evolution has outpaced current regulatory frameworks and emphasized the need for companies to conduct human rights due diligence while states must ensure adequate protection through appropriate regulations.

Civil society representatives highlighted the particular challenges facing the Global South, where different socioeconomic contexts and varying regulatory environments create unique human rights risks. They emphasized the need for culturally sensitive approaches and context-specific risk assessments, noting that AI systems developed in the Global North may have different implications when deployed in the Global South.

The discussion revealed broad consensus on the necessity of mandatory human rights impact assessments for high-risk AI systems, with participants supporting risk-based regulatory approaches similar to the EU AI Act. However, panelists also acknowledged that human rights frameworks alone may not capture all societal-level impacts of AI, suggesting the need for broader comprehensive approaches that address both individual and collective effects of AI deployment.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Corporate Human Rights Governance as Foundation**: Multiple panelists emphasized that companies must establish baseline human rights governance structures before integrating AI-specific principles. This includes commitment to UN Guiding Principles, having dedicated human rights programs, and ensuring board-level oversight of human rights risks.

– **Operationalizing Human Rights in AI Risk Assessment**: The discussion focused extensively on practical implementation methods, including red teaming, comprehensive risk assessment frameworks, multi-stakeholder engagement, and the need for culturally sensitive staff who understand local contexts, particularly in Global South deployments.

– **Regulatory Landscape and Mandatory Assessments**: Panelists addressed the evolving regulatory environment, particularly the EU AI Act’s requirements for fundamental rights impact assessments for high-risk AI systems, and debated the merits of legally mandating human rights due diligence versus voluntary corporate initiatives.

– **Global South Perspectives and Context-Specific Challenges**: Significant attention was given to how AI impacts differ between Global North and South, including varying socioeconomic realities, different constitutional rights frameworks, and the need for locally relevant benchmarks and taxonomies rather than one-size-fits-all approaches.

– **Beyond Individual Rights to Societal Impact**: The conversation evolved to consider whether traditional human rights frameworks adequately capture broader societal impacts of AI, such as educational transformation, job displacement, and community-level effects, suggesting the need for more comprehensive assessment approaches.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to explore how human rights considerations can be better integrated into AI risk management practices across different stakeholders – companies, multilateral organizations, and civil society – with particular attention to bridging the gap between Global North AI development and Global South deployment contexts.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a collaborative and constructive tone throughout, characterized by shared commitment to human rights principles despite different organizational perspectives. The tone was professional and solution-oriented, with panelists building on each other’s points rather than presenting conflicting viewpoints. There was a notable shift toward more nuanced complexity as the conversation progressed, moving from foundational principles to practical implementation challenges and ultimately to broader questions about the adequacy of current frameworks for addressing AI’s societal impacts.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Min thu Aung** – Accountability and Innovation Manager at the Global Network Initiative (GNI)

– **Alexandria Walden** – Representative from Google (specific title not mentioned in transcript)

– **Elina Thorstrom** – Representative from Telenor Group/DNA (leads AI risk assessment working group)

– **Nathalie Stadelmann** – Representative from OHCHR (Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights), part of the BTEC project

– **Jhalak Mrignayani Kakkar** – Representative from CCG (founding member of GNI), works on tech law and policy in the Global South, expert in Global Partnership for AI

– **Caitlin Kraft-Buchman** – (Role/organization not clearly specified in transcript, appears to work on gender and AI issues)

– **Audience** – Various audience members asking questions

**Additional speakers:**

– **Byungil Oh** – From Jinbonet, a digital rights organization based in South Korea

– **Richard Ringfield** – From BSR (Business for Social Responsibility)

# Human Rights Integration in AI Risk Management: A Multi-Stakeholder Panel Discussion

## Executive Summary

This panel discussion, organized by the Global Network Initiative (GNI) as part of the Internet Governance Forum, brought together diverse stakeholders to examine how human rights considerations can be effectively integrated into artificial intelligence risk management practices. The session featured representatives from major technology companies (Google, Telenor Group), multilateral organizations (UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights), and civil society advocates from both the Global North and South.

The discussion revealed broad agreement on fundamental principles while highlighting significant implementation challenges. Participants agreed that human rights must serve as the foundational framework for AI governance, though the conversation revealed complex questions about how to address both individual and broader societal impacts of AI systems, particularly across different global contexts.

## Session Context and Structure

Min Thu Aung from GNI opened the session by outlining the organization’s role in advancing human rights integration in AI governance. GNI has developed implementation guidelines for their AI and human rights principles and participates in the OECD AI Network of Experts. They are also involved in the B-Tech project’s Generative AI Human Rights Due Diligence initiative, which aims to develop practical guidance for companies conducting human rights impact assessments for AI systems.

The session was structured as a panel discussion followed by Q&A, with some participants joining remotely. Technical difficulties affected portions of the discussion, particularly limiting the contribution from the UN representative.

## Corporate Perspectives on Human Rights Integration

### Google’s Approach to Foundational Frameworks

Alexandria Walden from Google emphasized that human rights must be integrated at the foundational level rather than treated as an add-on. She stated that “human rights has to be at the baseline and then integrated into those processes and frameworks,” arguing that companies need comprehensive baseline human rights governance structures before developing AI-specific principles.

Walden described Google’s operational approach, which includes technical processes such as red teaming, secure AI frameworks, and coalition work with other stakeholders. She emphasized that having principles alone is insufficient without robust operational frameworks that technical teams can implement in their day-to-day work.

### Telenor’s Comprehensive Risk Assessment

Elina Thorström from Telenor Group reinforced the importance of top management commitment for effective implementation. She outlined Telenor’s approach, which builds AI strategy foundations on responsible AI principles with comprehensive governance structures that ensure human rights considerations are embedded throughout the organization.

Thorström emphasized that company values and policies should guide behavior “irrespective of which country we are at,” suggesting that internal ethical frameworks should exceed local regulatory requirements. She described Telenor’s integrated risk assessment approach, which examines human rights, security, privacy, and data governance holistically through cross-organizational collaboration.

## Global South Perspectives and Contextual Challenges

Jhalak Mrignayani Kakkar from the Centre for Communication Governance introduced crucial complexity by highlighting how AI technologies may have dramatically different implications when deployed across different contexts. She noted that “even within the Indian context, within an urban part of India versus a semi-urban part of India versus a rural part of India will differ significantly.”

Kakkar emphasized the need for context-specific approaches to risk assessment that reflect local socioeconomic realities. She argued that meaningful human rights due diligence requires culturally and linguistically sensitive staff who understand local contexts, and stressed the importance of sustained multi-stakeholder engagement between companies, civil society, academia, and governments.

She also noted the heterogeneity in constitutional rights embedding across Global South countries, requiring tailored approaches that consider local legal and cultural frameworks.

## International Human Rights Law Framework

Caitlin Kraft-Buchman from Women@TheTable provided a strong advocacy for rights-based frameworks over company-specific ethical approaches. She argued that “we tend to think of ethical principles, wonderful, and we love them, but they’re very a la carte, whereas human rights frameworks and international human rights law has been agreed by everybody.”

Kraft-Buchman emphasized the need for intentional design-based approaches that include multidisciplinary teams with social scientists, human rights experts, and anthropologists from the development stage. She also identified public procurement as a significant leverage point for deploying rights-respecting AI at scale.

## Regulatory Approaches and Implementation

The discussion revealed general support for regulatory frameworks among participants. Walden expressed Google’s support for risk-based regulatory approaches, particularly for high-risk AI applications, while acknowledging that voluntary approaches alone may be insufficient for widespread industry adoption.

However, Kakkar introduced a nuanced perspective on enforcement, suggesting that the lack of strict enforceability in human rights due diligence might actually encourage more meaningful assessments, as companies may be more willing to identify problems when they know there isn’t an automatic negative consequence.

## Individual Rights versus Societal Impact

A significant discussion point emerged when Richard Ringfield from Business for Social Responsibility questioned whether individual human rights-based approaches could adequately capture AI’s broader societal impacts. He noted that “many of the really big impacts that AI will have will be more at the societal rather than the individual level,” including transformations in education, employment, and social structures.

This intervention prompted acknowledgment from participants that traditional human rights frameworks, while essential, may need to be supplemented with broader societal impact evaluations. Kakkar responded by noting that human rights concepts are being reinterpreted for group and community settings, including developments in group privacy and community data rights.

## Questions and Additional Perspectives

The Q&A session included a question from Byungil Oh about South Korea’s National Human Rights Commission’s AI impact assessment tool and the Korean AI Basic Act, highlighting the global nature of efforts to develop human rights-based AI governance frameworks.

Technical difficulties limited the contribution from Nathalie Stadelmann of the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, though she was able to emphasize the importance of shared responsibility between companies and states in protecting human rights in AI development and deployment.

## Key Areas of Consensus

Despite representing diverse stakeholder perspectives, participants showed agreement on several fundamental points:

– Human rights must be foundational to AI governance rather than an afterthought

– Top management commitment is essential for effective implementation

– Operational frameworks and processes are necessary to translate principles into practice

– Multi-stakeholder collaboration is critical for developing effective approaches

– Context-specific considerations are important, particularly for Global South deployment

– Some form of regulatory framework is needed to ensure widespread adoption of rights-respecting practices

## Outstanding Challenges

The discussion highlighted several unresolved challenges:

– Lack of standardized human rights impact assessment methodologies for AI systems

– Uncertainty about appropriate risk thresholds for triggering mitigation measures

– Questions about the adequacy of individual-focused rights frameworks for addressing systemic societal impacts

– Need for context-specific approaches that reflect diverse global realities

– Balancing transparency requirements with practical implementation concerns

## Conclusion

This panel discussion demonstrated both the growing consensus around the importance of human rights integration in AI governance and the significant practical challenges that remain in implementation. While participants agreed on fundamental principles, the conversation revealed the complexity of translating these principles into effective practice across diverse global contexts.

The emphasis on contextual sensitivity, particularly regarding Global South perspectives, represents an important evolution in AI governance conversations. The discussion also highlighted the emerging recognition that comprehensive AI governance may require frameworks that address both individual human rights and broader societal impacts.

The session underscored the ongoing need for multi-stakeholder collaboration, standardized assessment methodologies, and regulatory frameworks that can effectively balance mandatory requirements with practical implementation realities. While significant challenges remain, the broad consensus on fundamental principles provides a foundation for continued progress in integrating human rights considerations into AI risk management practices.

Min thu Aung: ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ Good morning, everyone. Thank you so much for attending our panel on incorporating human rights in AI risk management. My name is Min Aung. I’m the Accountability and Innovation Manager at the Global Network Initiative, or GNI. Our panel today is set in the context of this. Governments around the world, especially in the EU of course, are starting to require tech companies to manage human rights risks in the way that they design and indeed use AI. Of course, companies do have AI-specific tools and principles, but sometimes these can fall short of aligning with international human rights standards. This panel aims to bring together a diverse range of voices from industry, from civil society, and also from multilateral bodies to explore how we can better integrate human rights into AI risk management practices. Perhaps a quick introduction to GNI first. We are a multi-stakeholder initiative. We bring together four constituencies of academics, civil society, companies, and investors for accountability, for shared learning, for collective advocacy on government and company policies and practices, which are at the intersection of technology and human rights. This is particularly relevant when companies face government requests or demands that have an impact on freedom of expression or privacy rights. We have a set of principles, the GNI principles and implementation guidelines, which aim to guide companies on how to respond when receiving government requests or demands that may have an impact on freedom of expression and privacy rights, as well as a law on conducting ongoing due diligence and so on. The GNI principles and implementation guidelines do indeed apply to AI insofar as governments produce mandates on AI services in various shapes or forms and indeed the need for companies to conduct human rights due diligence and, where necessary, impact assessments on AI services. In that vein, we as GNI have indeed been quite active in a variety of fora related to AI and also activities for our membership. For example, we are members of the OECD AI Network of Experts and we have been involved in BTEC’s GenAI Human Rights Due Diligence Project. Within the GNI company assessments, we are exploring the intersection between AI and human rights due diligence. We have also obviously put out many statements of concerns on potential rights violations in relation to AI government mandates in Canada and in India, among others. We have also hosted learning discussions among our members on AI as well as government mandates, the last of which was during our annual learning forum, which was held in DC last year. Last but not least, we have an AI working group within the Global Network Initiative where a selection of GNI members with deep AI experience are, amongst other things, developing a policy brief on government interventions in AI and rights-respecting responses to these mandates. Enough about GNI, now moving on to our panel. Firstly, we will hear from two company panelists from different parts of the Internet stack, along the theme of diversity, on how they integrate human rights considerations into the development and deployment of AI-related products and services. Secondly, we will hear from BTEC themselves on multilateral efforts to promote incorporation of human rights in AI governance. Finally, we will hear the views from civil society panelists on what more can be done by companies and by policymakers, lawmakers, and regulators on incorporating human rights in AI. We will then have a Q&A, and then I will provide a summary, and then we will wrap up. All right, we look like we are on time. Perhaps I will start with my first request for intervention to Alex Walden from Google. I will let you introduce yourself in a bit. Google is obviously an integrated player in the AI ecosystem, for example, developing consumer-facing AI services like Gemini and its predecessors, of course. We also note, of course, that Google is a founding member of GNI and has a dedicated human rights program and has had responsible AI principles since 2018. And, of course, that Google’s approach to human rights due diligence is informed by the UN Guiding Principles as well as the GNI framework. Just a couple of questions, which you may address in any order that you feel comfortable. I guess firstly, how does Google conduct risk assessments across its footprint? And how do you incorporate that human rights are incorporated in these risk assessments? And indeed, looking more externally, how do laws and regulations like the EU AI Act and the AI Basic Act in South Korea influence how human rights are incorporated in your AI risk assessments? And indeed, what advice do you have for other companies to normalize AI risk assessments, human rights within AI risk assessments within their operations? Over to you.

Alexandria Walden: All right. Thank you. Thanks for that question. Thanks to GNI for putting this session together. I think it’s a really important topic. I will try to – I think I can actually get to all of those across a few things. So, I mean, the first thing to say, and it may seem obvious, but I do think it’s important to point out that actually where companies should start with how you integrate human rights into how your AI work is fundamentally to make sure that the company has human rights governance at its baseline, right? So, at Google, we are committed, as you said, to the GNI principles. We’re committed to the UN guiding principles on business and human rights. And what that means for us is that we have a corporate policy that says that these are our values and that we have ways to operationalize these commitments throughout the company. Obviously, it doesn’t mean that we’re doing it perfectly, but what it does mean is that these are values that are set from the highest level of the company, that they are risks that are reviewed by the board, and that we have a human rights program that works to implement and ensure these commitments across our various products and services. And so, having that in place is what allows us to then get to a point where, okay, we also have AI principles on top of that. Our AI principles build on top of our commitments to the UNGPs, our GNI principles. And so, the AI principles are really about a single type of technology that we have that’s integrated across our policies. Our AI principles, again, reinforce the commitment to international law and human rights. And so, that is a reminder to everyone who is doing technical work or who is doing more qualitative trust and safety work or public policy work or legal work across these products that human rights is something we need to be thinking about. And then, at the more operational level, because we have this sort of governance structure and these principles integrated, that means that everyone who is in our technical teams, those who are developing AI, are aware that they should be thinking about what rights-related impacts or risks might arise in their work. And so, we have to set up processes to address that. And so, really, that’s, I think, the biggest piece, is making sure that you have processes and teams in place to operationalize all of those principles. Those teams are the ones that write the policies to ensure we are thinking about how human rights might manifest in AI and content or related to AI and privacy or related to AI and bias and discrimination. All of these things require process and really guidelines. So, you just sort of keep getting at the more granular and granular level of what’s required. But ultimately, human rights has to be at the baseline and then integrated into those processes and frameworks. So, we do things like red teaming or we have the safe framework, the secure AI framework, and that’s sort of some coalition work that we do with other companies. All of that embeds the way we think about human rights but really gets more pragmatic at the operational level for testing and for red teaming, et cetera, to make sure that we are identifying where risks may arise.

Min thu Aung: Elina Thorström, Jhalak Mrignayani Kakkar, Elina Thorström, Min thu Aung, Alexandria Walden and has been a strong advocate of AI ethics and uses AI indeed within its network management, customer services and indeed customer-facing IoT solutions. So if I could pose similar questions to what I posed to Alex, how does Telenor Group indeed conduct AI risk assessments across its footprint and how do you ensure that human rights is incorporated in these risk assessments and how does your exposure to the EU AI Act within Europe but indeed the comparative lack of such laws and regulations within Telenor’s Asian business units influence how human rights are incorporated into AI risk assessments and what advice do you have for companies as well? Thank you.

Elina Thorstrom: Thank you Min and hello everyone. It’s great to be here and talk about human rights and AI, an extremely topical topic currently. And if we look at what Telenor does, I think very similarly what Alex pointed out, that it all comes down to having that top management commitment to responsible AI as well as human rights. And that is at the core of what Telenor does. And for example how we have started building our AI strategy, the foundation of it is really responsible AI. And that’s embedded to everything we do when we develop, deploy AI applications etc. So I think the top management commitment to that is very important in order for us to actually achieve those goals and promote responsible AI throughout the organisation and actually bring that to the structures and procedures as also Alex pointed out. What we have done at DNA for example is that we have driven our AI risk assessment from our Telenor’s responsible AI principles. So actually those principles guide our risk assessment work. However of course AI governance is a much more broader topic than that. So of course we need a lot of more different elements to that besides risk assessment. So for example awareness and training building, we need to have proper tools in use, we need to work together for example with our vendors and with our stakeholders. And we need to have those policies, guidelines as well as principles in place. So it’s a very big topic, comprehensive topic where we need to take into account these different elements. And then if we look at the risk assessments that we do in DNA, we go through very practical level our AI applications and think about the risks very holistically. So we have a very comprehensive view on this. And it has been very rewarding I must say. I lead that working group myself. And we look at human rights perspectives, we look at impacts on security, privacy, we look at data governance. So we do a very holistic view on AI. And we see that very beneficial also because AI is such a large topic. So this is the way we have built our own program. And if we look at our responsible AI principles, the first one actually is promoting incorporating human rights to our procedures. So that’s why it’s core at the risk assessment procedures that we also do. Coming into then to the question of EU’s AI Act and how to apply legislation when AI Act as we know is in EU. But Telenor as mentioned, we operate also in Asia. However our values, our policies, our principles, they guide our work. Irrespective of which country we are at. So that is also at the core of how we do things. Although a part of AI governance and good AI governance is of course to make sure that we are compliant with the regulation. But that’s only a part of it. So the company’s culture, policy, guidelines, those are the ones that actually guide us and the work that we do. Perhaps also to the last question of what would be my suggestions to go forward. I would come back to the commitment part. So I think that’s the important and key element. So that we are actually committed to human rights approach as well as responsible AI. But also the collaboration. So we utilize expertise throughout our organization. And that has helped a lot and also supports our work. And also means that we learn from each other a lot. So this I think would be my… And it’s a journey. So this is not a sprint. So it’s a journey that we are all in this together. And we learn as we go. Thank you.

Min thu Aung: Great, thank you very much. I see a lot of commonalities in the answers. So that’s really great to hear. So perhaps we can move to a different, I guess, different actor within the AI landscape to Natalie from OHCHR, part of the BTEC project. So Natalie, thank you so much for joining remotely. Good to see you. I hope you can hear and see us just fine. So we would love to explore the role of the UN more generally and of BTEC more specifically in this context. So BTEC obviously has produced various outputs on the intersection of human rights and AI. So most notably the taxonomy of human rights risk connected to Gen AI, which was produced in November, which GNI was also involved in. So we would love to hear how do you see the role of multilateral organizations like the UN, like the OECD and others in ensuring the widespread adoption of human rights in AI risk assessments? What role indeed do you see for WSIS and GDC in promoting this adoption? And last but not least, how do you see the kind of global geopolitical divides on human rights in AI impacting this drive and what suggestions do you have for companies that are navigating these divides and changes? Over to you.

Nathalie Stadelmann: Thank you. Thank you, Jean. I hope everybody can hear me. And thank you very much for the invitation and for bringing together this panel. And greetings from Geneva. So just a few words about the BTEC project. It’s a project that was launched by the High Commissioner Office for Human Rights already almost six years ago. And really very much with the goal to translate the guiding principle for the technology sector. So we have produced a lot of guidance in very much a multi-stakeholder fashion. So we are working with GNI and with the OECD and as well with some of the companies through our committee of practice. And I obviously recognize Alex from Google in that space. And just that we are really using the guiding principle as the global standard for business conduct. And in that respect, when it comes to the governments of AI, I couldn’t miss the opportunity because we have the Human Rights Council now ongoing in Geneva. And we just produced BTEC report that was mandated by the Human Rights Council. We just showed the interest on this topic about the shared responsibility of companies that are developing and deploying AI to respect human rights as well as the state’s duty to protect those rights through requiring those companies to respect human rights as well as to access remedy. So maybe I was thinking to just run you through quickly the latest findings that we have in this report. So obviously we know that the key message is that innovation can bring a lot of promises but as well peril for human rights. Especially in terms of the complex human rights challenges that they bring and some of them because of their unforeseen nature. So the report very much acknowledged the speed and scale of which AI technology are evolving and that outspaced the current regulatory framework. Jhalak Mrignayani Kakkar, Elina Thorström, Min Thu Aung, Alexandria Walden Jhalak Mrignayani Kakkar, Elina Thorström, Min Thu Aung, Alexandria Walden Jhalak Mrignayani Kakkar, Elina Thorström, Min Thu Aung, Alexandria Walden Jhalak Mrignayani Kakkar, Elina Thorström, Min Thu Aung, Alexandria Walden Jhalak Mrignayani Kakkar, Elina Thorström, Min Thu Aung, Alexandria Walden Elina Thorström, Min Thu Aung, Alexandria Walden Elina Thorström, Min Thu Aung, Alexandria Walden Elina Thorström, Min Thu Aung, Alexandria Walden Elina Thorström, Min Thu Aung, Alexandria Walden Elina Thorström, Min Thu Aung, Alexandria Walden Elina Thorström, Min Thu Aung, Alexandria Walden Elina Thorström, Min Thu Aung, Alexandria Walden Elina Thorström, Min Thu Aung, Alexandria Walden Elina Thorström, Min Thu Aung, Alexandria Walden Elina Thorstrom, Min Thu Aung, Alexandria Walden Elina Thorström, Min Thu Aung, Alexandria Walden Elina Thorström, Min Thu Aung, Alexandria Walden Elina Thorström, Min Thu Aung, Alexandria Walden Elina Thorström, Min Thu Aung, Alexandria Walden Elina Thorström, Min Thu Aung, Alexandria Walden

Min thu Aung: Elina Thorström, Min Thu Aung, Alexandria Walden Elina Thorström, Min Thu Aung, Alexandria Walden

Caitlin Kraft-Buchman: Thank you so much, Min, and thank you very, very much for including us in this conversation. We began this journey, actually, in 2017 with OHCHR and the Women’s Rights Division, where we convened—we thought we were just convening several professors from FAFL and ETH and one or two people from OHCHR, but 21 lawyers showed up in this room because everybody was so fascinated with this idea that gender and AI together, what did they have to do with one another? So that alliance, in a way, has led us to working with FAFL, somebody doing a master’s thesis on what these human rights impacts are, and to our creating a methodology that’s now been taught at Cambridge, Technical University Munich. We work with African Center for Technology Studies in Kenya, which is a Pan-African university with Chile’s National Center for Artificial Intelligence, and the course actually sits on the CERBON Center for AI website, which looks at a human rights-based approach to the AI lifecycle. We’ve also taught it at CERN, because we found that technologists, of course, want to do the right thing, but they don’t really know—human rights is really quite abstract idea. It’s particularly abstract to people from North America, who tend to think of civil and political rights as being the only—as the primary human rights, and economic and social rights really not really being part of the larger conversation. People are like, really? Are you sure? Right to health? Is that really a thing? So we have this design course, which is really, really focused on—a design course for developers, for data science majors, but now we’ve found that policymakers like it as well, because it’s a conversation. It’s a critical analysis. And what we’ve also found is that a common vocabulary needs to sort of be implemented, because policymakers are even afraid of talking to technologists, and technologists don’t really understand what the policymakers want. So we’re also trying to create a space where people can have conversations, because I think good people want to make this all work for this technology that’s all surrounding us. And this starts with a design-based approach, with intentionality, with understanding what an objective is, that actually why are you making a product, actually what is the impact that you would like to have, through to who should the team be sitting around the table, and when we talk about diversity. In this case, we’re not only talking about diversity of gender. We’re talking geographic diversity, but also multidisciplinary diversity. Where are the social scientists? Where are the human rights experts? Where are the anthropologists? If it’s a medical application, where are the doctors, the nurses, who are the people taking the blood? Really, everybody in all the stakeholders in the lifecycle of a product, because we’re seeing that there’s a lot of siloed-off invention. And then going through there to data discovery, to understanding whether you actually have the data. We know that for health applications, for example, we’ve never really discovered the data on women’s bodies, no less women of the global south, or people of the global south. So what does that mean, then, when you’re deploying, at scale, a health application that actually only has the data for a very, very small demographic, and what are some of the fixes to that? So it’s a question of creating awareness, and creating a conversation. So that’s really what we’re focused on. In terms of, and being intentional, and I think the intentionality is really key, in terms of our work, we would like everyone, of course, to expand beyond compliance. So this notion of principles, we tend to think of ethical principles, wonderful, and we love them, but they’re very a la carte, whereas human rights frameworks and international human rights law has been agreed by everybody, and as a point of departure, it really is a very good place to start, as opposed to one company’s or one academic institution’s idea of what really should be foregrounded or not. So we think that that would actually help everybody work towards really, kind of, systemic rebalance, and maybe even using some of these products to look at the way that these can be positively help, instead of just be deployed. We would say that one thing I just want to say is an opportunity, where we’re also working very deeply, and have for some time, is on procurement, because we know that public procurement, in particular, because we know that it’s a very large part, it’s 13% of the EU GDP. In developing nations, it can be up to 30 to 40% of the GDP. These things are being, really, these products are being deployed at scale, and we think that using really interesting AI deployment levers, we would maybe be able to take products that connect people to services, as opposed to only detect fraud. So right now, we’re sort of in a negative part of how, and all of us want to save money for our governments and ourselves, but it’s also how do we also connect to better quality of life and to services. So we think that that could be a lever, a really interesting deployment, and indeed, we’re working on technical guidelines that, in other words, questions that procurers can ask of vendors from the public sector about, like, oh, are you doing a fairness metric? Right now, if people are asking that, it’s just like, check, yes, we did. You know that didn’t work with Compass, all of you know, but so which fairness metrics? Why did you use that? Did you experiment? Why did you think that was a good idea? And how these conversations really sort of more deeply before things are deployed. And finally, I’ll say we’re also working on human rights and AI benchmark, which is going to be sort of the first machine learning benchmark that’s dealing with an international human rights law framework, which we’re hoping, once it’s put on, you know, it’ll sit on Hugging Face and other open source platforms, developers, machine learning experts can use to understand whether what they’ve created really does match with human rights criteria, international human rights law.

Min thu Aung: Thanks. That’s quite an innovation. Very impressive. Thank you so much for that, Caitlin. Okay, so we’ll now shortly move on to an intervention from Jalak, but before that, we’re just one intervention away from the Q&A session, so for those that are online, I would encourage you to pose your questions already in the chat, if you haven’t done so already, and we will take the online questions first in the spirit of, you know, ensuring everybody online also feels a part of this, you know, a part of this room. So yeah, then we’ll move on. Jalak, if I can, so yeah, Jalak CCG is a founding member of GNI, and within your work on tech law and policy in the Global South, you’ve done extensive research exploring different sort of modalities of AI laws and regulations, including a recent workshop that you did on AI and rule of law with South Asian judiciary members back in November. You’ve also been an active participant as an expert in GPI, the Global Partnership for AI, and of course the recent benefits of AI impact the Global South in ways that are maybe sometimes different to the impacts on the Global North, right? So the relative absence of the dedicated laws and regulations, maybe there’s varying capacity to enforce laws that may or may not exist, different consumer patterns, and perhaps the potential to impact very large populations that may have different levels of AI literacy or indeed digital and media literacy. So the role of Global South governments in protecting or indeed not protecting user rights will be covered in GNI’s policy brief on government interventions in AI that I alluded to a bit earlier on. So yeah, so in your view, when creating local AI laws and regulations, or indeed adapting existing laws and regulations in the context of AI, what can or what should Global South policymakers, lawmakers, and regulators learn from the human rights impacts of companies’ emerging AI activities? Secondly, where do you see opportunities to influence the inclusion of human rights in companies’ risk management processes and policies in the Global South? And last but not least, taking a very particular Global South angle here, why is it so important for the Global South in general and India in particular? Over to you, Jalak.

Jhalak Mrignayani Kakkar: Thank you. Thanks, Min. I think there’s a lot of work happening globally on human rights due diligence, risk assessment of AI systems. A lot of it is concentrated currently in what we call the Global North. And I think there may be, there’s not enough work that’s currently happening in the Global South. and the Global South. Why it’s important that work happens in the Global South is there are different socioeconomic realities, different societal contexts, but also if a lot of these technologies are being developed in the North, we don’t know. They could have very different implications in the South. They’re not being developed and designed keeping in mind those contexts. I think which really underlines the need for human rights due diligence by companies. It underlines the need for human rights risk assessment to be built into governance frameworks that are being designed in the Global South because that will really allow us to operationally, proactively identify risks in a methodical way instead of post-facto reacting to harms. It’ll also help regulators understand what the harms are and really design governance regulatory risk mechanisms accordingly. I think one of the things that there’s now increasing focus amongst academics and civil society in the Global South is while at the global level there’s been a lot of benchmark development, taxonomy development that has happened, I think increasingly many of us in our context are looking at how we can build out more specific benchmarks and taxonomies that more accurately cover the range of risks and harms that arise in our specific context. I think that really is maybe the first step towards enabling an effective human rights due diligence exercises by companies. Many of our AI companies are global companies and very often a lot of their staff is global staff that is not very familiar with local contexts. I think that’s a very key part for academy and civil society in various country contexts to come in and start playing this role of developing benchmarks, taxonomies, but also points to the need for a sustained multi-stakeholder engagement between companies and civil society and academia on one hand so that there can be cross-learning, cross-pollination of ideas, but also with governments as they figure out how to identify harms and conduct human rights risk assessment. I think it’s sometimes hard to articulate what risks should be assessed for and I think we’ve been talking about how human rights frameworks provide a great underpinning and starting point for identification of risks. But what I do want to point to is there is, for instance, a lot of heterogeneity within the global south in terms of what rights are embedded in their constitutions, the extent of embedding of human rights. And while it’s important to pay attention to human rights frameworks, I think we also have to be strategic about perhaps language we are using and how we are encouraging governments in certain contexts to adopt certain ethical principles or frameworks. And we have to think about how we approach some of these conversations and we frame these conversations so that we can reach the intended outcome and impact that we want. So I think we really have to think about how the other sort of question that has repeatedly come up in the Indian context within which I work is how broadly do you define the risk? If there’s too much breadth and too much variety of risks being identified, it can hinder the development of more specific assessment tools and methods, for instance for algorithmic bias, but if it’s too specific, you lose out on the ability to allow a more broad capture of harms that may be arising as these due diligence or risk assessments are conducted. How do you prioritize certain human rights over others, given their mutually affirming character, and I think the way a particular service interacts, even within the Indian context, within an urban part of India versus a semi-urban part of India versus a rural part of India will differ significantly. So I think even within a particular country context, there will have to be various scenarios that are built out in terms of context that the same technology is being deployed in. So I think there are many, many things to think about as these risk assessments are being designed, and I think it’s important to keep that in mind. And that goes back to a point that I raised earlier, that you need culturally and linguistically sensitive stuff, which I mean even within the Indian context, that means in different parts of the country there’s people speaking different languages, so you may need staff involved in this that has a multiplicity of perspectives or to engage with the different challenges that emerge in those contexts. I’ll just close up by pointing to two points. Risk assessment, human rights due diligence. One of the criticisms is the lack of enforceability. But perhaps that’s also where the value is, because perhaps companies are more incentivized to conduct it when they know that there isn’t a negative consequence. But I think one of the challenges that we’ve seen is, at what threshold do you ask for risk mitigation to be undertaken? How do you articulate that? That is a challenge at this moment in time, to specify that threshold. And here I want to point back to the fact that this is where multi-stakeholder conversations and openness become important. But also, what is the level of transparency that we expect from companies? What is the level of transparency governments should require in legislation, regulation they’re designing? Because until there is a level of disclosure, it’s hard to really identify what challenges are emerging and what needs to be articulated more clearly to make this a more meaningful exercise so that we can really ensure that AI is developing in a way that supports human rights rather than starts to impede it.

Min thu Aung: Thank you very much for the talk. Lots of things to consider to make sure that AI development is context-specific and also considers different rights impacts, not only within the global South in general, but also even going in a more granular level between urban and rural impacts, perhaps even. Thank you so much. All right, then we move to the Q&A part of our panel. I don’t actually see any questions in the chat yet, apart from questions about the links that Natalie kindly re-shared, so thank you so much for that, Natalie. Then perhaps moving to the room, are there any questions from the room to our panelists? Yes, I see one from Ben. Any others? Yes. Okay. Richard? Did you have a question too? Yes. People have to line up. Okay, great. All right. Thank you. Go ahead, please. If you could introduce yourself first, and then a question, please. Thank you. Thank you.

Audience: My name is Byungil Oh. I’m from Jinbonet, a digital rights organization based in South Korea. Last year, Korea’s National Human Rights Commission released a human rights impact assessment tool for AI, and I was involved in its development. We conducted a human rights impact assessment on the Human Rights Commission’s pilot system earlier this year. The process wasn’t just about going through a checklist. It involved an exchange of diverse perspectives, so we found it very useful. However, the tool has not yet been widely used, mainly because there is no legal obligation to conduct such assessment. Of course, some companies may conduct internal risk assessment, but independent assessment that include participation from affected parties are rarely carried out. All the Korean past The panel discussed basic AI law last year, which includes a provision related to human rights impact assessment. It only states that efforts should be made to conduct them. It does not mandate them. Korean civil society groups are now calling for mandatory human rights impact assessment for high-risk AI systems. I would like to hear the panelist’s view on legality, legally mandating such assessment.

Min thu Aung: Thank you. That’s a great question. Thank you so much for that. I would propose having one company intervention at least on the question that was posed, mandating human rights due diligence for AI, and I guess in the context of high-risk AI perhaps. And perhaps, yeah, one civil society intervention at least if possible. And Natalie, if you want to jump in, please feel free. Who would like to go first?

Alexandria Walden: I’m happy to just jump in quickly. I think if you have human rights governance inside of a company, then you should be doing ongoing human rights due diligence across all of the activity in your company, and that should also apply to your AI work, one. And then two, with respect to sort of regulations to require human rights due diligence, and then specifically for high-risk application areas, we see that with the EU AI Act, and many companies, including mine, have supported a risk-based approach, which does mandate fundamental rights or human rights impact assessment for high-risk application. So I think that’s something that you will see a lot of support for from industry.

Caitlin Kraft-Buchman: Wonderful. Thank you so much. Yeah, and I’m really happy for the question, because I think that we need to focus basically more on impact than necessarily even risk or harm, but just really say how, from the very get-go, what is the impact on humans? Integrate it, as we’ve just heard it, you know, all the way through the objective and the design, all the way through. As we know, in the HUD area, which is the sort of fundamental rights impact suggestion from the Council of Europe, there’s going to now be a more formal – I’m sure Natalie will speak to that – more formal, because there is no standardized human rights impact assessment anywhere from any body, sort of international body. But that HUD area really brings – I mean, what we’ve done, we’ve worked with the Turing, who did it, and we’ve brought the stakeholder part of it really way up front, and I think that that’s going to really make a huge difference if you do have this sort of multi-stakeholder consultation, this idea of co-creation, really at the get-go. I just want to say two things. I think that we’re going to also go to a right to know, ultimately, in terms of the legislation, and that right to know will be the transparency of what the training data is writ large, right, once we get all the IP issues settled. And then the second thing will be the explainability, that really, at all levels of society, we can kind of understand what’s happening with the algorithm and then also potential redress. Yeah, that’s it.

Min thu Aung: Thank you, Caitlin. Would anyone else like to intervene? Natalie should talk about their impact assessment. I mean, Natalie, would you like to intervene as well, perhaps talking about your impact assessment tools?

Nathalie Stadelmann: Sure. Maybe just to draw, because I didn’t really go into the recommendation of the report, but indeed, to the colleague representing civil society in South Korea, I would invite him to look at the recommendation we have when it comes to states, when indeed there are regulatory requirements requiring, basically, a company to conduct human rights due diligence, and there should be, as well, encouragement that they publish the human rights due diligence and impact assessment that they have implemented. And those regulations should, as well, as much as possible, request companies developing and deploying AI that they verify the data input and the resulting output to ensure that there is proper representation in terms of gender, race, cultural diversity, and basically safeguards against any negative impact linked to possible discriminatory AI outputs and their consequences. So this is a recommendation in the report. And in terms of human rights impact assessment, we have produced, together with the great support of GNI, as well, and that’s part of the resources listed in the session panel, guidance specifically on generative AI, and there is detailed guidance on human rights impact assessment of generative AI. So I would, as well, invite colleagues to have a look at this specific guidance that we produced now a bit more than a year ago. And just a comment, as well, to the colleague on the panel who mentioned India, I wanted just to draw attention that there will be an AI summit in India in February. And that’s very interesting, precisely in terms of bringing global majority perspective into the discussion. And it seems from the documents published so far that the focus will be on open, transparent, and rights-respecting AI development during the summit. And I think it’s very welcome that after countries like the UK and South Korea and France having hosted those past AI summits, that this summit next February in India, I believe, will be really a good opportunity to possibly, because there was this question asked to me about the geopolitical context, as well. I think we have seen, as well, Brazil developing AI regulation, and so as counterbalance in brackets to the developers in the global north.

Min thu Aung: Thank you very much, Nathalie. I appreciate it. We have two and a half minutes left, and I think two questions. So if we could have the questions together, if possible. Okay, great. Thanks, Ben. Richard, please go ahead.

Audience: Richard Ringfield from BSR. I think while a human rights-based approach is really a necessary prerequisite, many of the really big impacts that AI will have will be more at the societal rather than the individual level. So we’re seeing already, for example, shifts in the way education needs to be carried out as a result of generative AI and people’s ability to research and learn. It’s likely that AI will lead to job displacement or shifts in different jobs. So I’m just wondering whether the panel thinks that those sort of bigger societal impacts or risks can be captured by a human rights-based approach, or whether we need to go a bit beyond sort of the individual human rights-based approach to make sure we fully acknowledge all of the risks that come with AI.

Min thu Aung: Wonderful question. Thank you, Richard. This is really quite open to anyone, so would anyone like to intervene there?

Elina Thorstrom: I can, for example, tell about our approach. A very good question, I think. Sorry. Excellent. Very good question. And how we at least see it is that we need to have a very comprehensive approach at Telenor. And it requires, of course, taking into account the human rights, but it is correct, as you say, that that is definitely not enough. So we need to look at AI much more broadly and look at the impacts, what it has also at the company level, and also educate, train, and build awareness to our employees. So all of these are essential part of, in my opinion, on AI governance.

Jhalak Mrignayani Kakkar: Yeah, I agree. Just two points. I think social media platforms have pointed to the need of societal impact assessment. Secondly, existing human rights are being reinterpreted in group and community settings like privacy, group privacy, community rights over data. So I think there’s also a reinterpretation and broadening of perspective required around human rights in the technology context.

Min thu Aung: Thank you very much. We have 30 seconds remaining. So I would like to, unless anyone has any last-minute must-have interventions. No? I would like to close the panel here. Thank you so much to our panelists for taking part and sharing their views. Thank you so much to those participating online and also for the questions that we received. So yeah, as per the IGF requirements, we will be posting up a summary of this related to the session. So please feel free to read there. And with that, I thank everyone again. Appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Agreement points

Top management commitment is essential for effective human rights integration in AI

Speakers

– Alexandria Walden
– Elina Thorstrom

Arguments

Companies need baseline human rights governance before integrating AI principles, with corporate policies committed to UN Guiding Principles and board-level oversight

Top management commitment to responsible AI and human rights is essential, with AI strategy foundations built on responsible AI principles

Summary

Both speakers emphasize that successful integration of human rights into AI requires commitment from the highest levels of company leadership, with corporate policies and governance structures established at the board level

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Operational processes and frameworks are necessary to implement human rights principles in AI development

Speakers

– Alexandria Walden
– Elina Thorstrom

Arguments

Technical teams need processes and guidelines to operationalize human rights principles through red teaming, secure AI frameworks, and coalition work

Comprehensive risk assessment should examine human rights, security, privacy, and data governance holistically through cross-organizational collaboration

Summary

Both speakers agree that having principles alone is insufficient and that companies need specific operational processes, frameworks, and collaborative approaches to effectively implement human rights considerations in AI development

Topics

Human rights | Infrastructure | Legal and regulatory

Support for risk-based regulatory approaches with mandatory human rights assessments for high-risk AI

Speakers

– Alexandria Walden
– Audience

Arguments

Companies should conduct ongoing human rights due diligence across all activities, including AI work, with support for risk-based regulatory approaches

Legal mandates for human rights impact assessments are necessary because voluntary approaches lack widespread adoption

Summary

There is agreement that regulatory frameworks requiring human rights impact assessments for high-risk AI applications are necessary and supported by industry, as voluntary approaches have proven insufficient

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Multi-stakeholder collaboration is essential for effective AI governance

Speakers

– Jhalak Mrignayani Kakkar
– Nathalie Stadelmann
– Min thu Aung

Arguments

Multi-stakeholder engagement between companies, civil society, academia, and governments is essential for cross-learning and context-appropriate solutions

UN and multilateral bodies play crucial roles in translating guiding principles for technology sector through multi-stakeholder guidance development

Multi-stakeholder initiatives like GNI are essential for accountability and collective advocacy at the intersection of technology and human rights

Summary

All three speakers emphasize the critical importance of bringing together diverse stakeholders including companies, civil society, academia, and governments to develop effective AI governance frameworks

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

AI impacts extend beyond individual rights to broader societal implications

Speakers

– Elina Thorstrom
– Jhalak Mrignayani Kakkar
– Audience

Arguments

AI impacts extend beyond individual rights to societal level changes in education, employment, and social structures requiring comprehensive approaches

Human rights concepts are being reinterpreted for group and community settings, including group privacy and community data rights

AI impacts extend beyond individual human rights to broader societal transformations requiring comprehensive assessment approaches

Summary

There is consensus that AI’s impacts go beyond individual human rights to encompass broader societal changes including education, employment, and community structures, requiring expanded assessment frameworks

Topics

Human rights | Economic | Sociocultural

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers advocate for using established international human rights frameworks as the foundation for AI governance rather than relying on individual companies’ ethical principles, emphasizing the universal agreement and comprehensive nature of human rights law

Speakers

– Caitlin Kraft-Buchman
– Nathalie Stadelmann

Arguments

Human rights frameworks provide better foundation than a la carte ethical principles since they represent globally agreed standards

UN and multilateral bodies play crucial roles in translating guiding principles for technology sector through multi-stakeholder guidance development

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Both speakers emphasize the need for context-specific approaches to AI development that consider diverse perspectives and local realities, requiring multidisciplinary expertise and culturally sensitive frameworks

Speakers

– Jhalak Mrignayani Kakkar
– Caitlin Kraft-Buchman

Arguments

Global South faces different socioeconomic realities where technologies developed in the North may have different implications, requiring specific benchmarks and taxonomies

Design-based approach with intentionality is needed, including multidisciplinary teams with social scientists, human rights experts, and anthropologists

Topics

Human rights | Development | Sociocultural

Both speakers support comprehensive human rights due diligence requirements for AI systems, with regulatory frameworks that mandate transparency and verification processes to ensure non-discriminatory outcomes

Speakers

– Alexandria Walden
– Nathalie Stadelmann

Arguments

Companies should conduct ongoing human rights due diligence across all activities, including AI work, with support for risk-based regulatory approaches

Regulations should require publication of human rights due diligence and verification of data input/output for proper representation and non-discrimination

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Unexpected consensus

Industry support for mandatory human rights regulations

Speakers

– Alexandria Walden
– Audience

Arguments

Companies should conduct ongoing human rights due diligence across all activities, including AI work, with support for risk-based regulatory approaches

Legal mandates for human rights impact assessments are necessary because voluntary approaches lack widespread adoption

Explanation

It is somewhat unexpected to see strong alignment between a major tech company representative and civil society on the need for mandatory regulatory requirements, as industry typically resists additional regulatory burdens. This suggests a maturing recognition that voluntary approaches are insufficient

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Acknowledgment of limitations in current human rights frameworks for AI

Speakers

– Jhalak Mrignayani Kakkar
– Elina Thorstrom
– Audience

Arguments

Human rights concepts are being reinterpreted for group and community settings, including group privacy and community data rights

AI impacts extend beyond individual rights to societal level changes in education, employment, and social structures requiring comprehensive approaches

AI impacts extend beyond individual human rights to broader societal transformations requiring comprehensive assessment approaches

Explanation

There is unexpected consensus across different stakeholder types that traditional individual-focused human rights frameworks may be insufficient for addressing AI’s broader societal impacts, suggesting a need for new approaches beyond established human rights paradigms

Topics

Human rights | Economic | Sociocultural

Overall assessment

Summary

There is strong consensus on the need for top management commitment, operational frameworks for implementation, multi-stakeholder collaboration, and regulatory requirements for human rights in AI. Speakers also agree that AI impacts extend beyond individual rights to broader societal implications requiring expanded assessment approaches.

Consensus level

High level of consensus across diverse stakeholders (industry, civil society, multilateral organizations, Global South perspectives) on fundamental principles and approaches, with surprising alignment on the need for mandatory regulatory frameworks. This suggests the field is maturing toward shared understanding of necessary governance structures, though implementation challenges remain regarding context-specific applications and enforcement mechanisms.

Different viewpoints

Scope of impact assessment – individual vs societal level

Speakers

– Elina Thorstrom
– Jhalak Mrignayani Kakkar
– Audience

Arguments

AI impacts extend beyond individual rights to societal level changes in education, employment, and social structures requiring comprehensive approaches

Human rights concepts are being reinterpreted for group and community settings, including group privacy and community data rights

AI impacts extend beyond individual human rights to broader societal transformations requiring comprehensive assessment approaches

Summary

While there’s agreement that AI impacts go beyond individual rights, there are different views on how to address this. Thorstrom emphasizes comprehensive company-level approaches, Kakkar focuses on reinterpreting existing human rights frameworks for group settings, and the audience member suggests that traditional human rights frameworks may be insufficient for capturing societal-level changes.

Topics

Human rights | Economic | Sociocultural

Regulatory enforcement vs voluntary approaches

Speakers

– Alexandria Walden
– Audience

Arguments

Companies should conduct ongoing human rights due diligence across all activities, including AI work, with support for risk-based regulatory approaches

Legal mandates for human rights impact assessments are necessary because voluntary approaches lack widespread adoption

Summary

While Walden supports risk-based regulatory approaches for high-risk AI applications, the audience member from South Korea argues more broadly that legal mandates are necessary because voluntary approaches are not widely adopted, suggesting a difference in views on the extent of regulatory requirements needed.

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Unexpected differences

Adequacy of human rights frameworks for AI governance

Speakers

– Caitlin Kraft-Buchman
– Audience

Arguments

Human rights frameworks provide better foundation than a la carte ethical principles since they represent globally agreed standards

AI impacts extend beyond individual human rights to broader societal transformations requiring comprehensive assessment approaches

Explanation

This disagreement is unexpected because both parties are advocating for comprehensive approaches to AI governance, yet they differ on whether existing human rights frameworks are sufficient. Kraft-Buchman strongly advocates for human rights frameworks as superior to other approaches, while the audience member suggests these frameworks may be inadequate for capturing broader societal impacts, potentially requiring approaches that go beyond traditional human rights paradigms.

Topics

Human rights | Economic | Sociocultural

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion shows remarkable consensus on fundamental principles – all speakers agree that human rights should be central to AI governance, that multi-stakeholder collaboration is essential, and that proactive risk assessment is preferable to reactive harm mitigation. The main disagreements center on implementation approaches rather than core values.

Disagreement level

Low to moderate disagreement level with high strategic significance. While speakers largely agree on goals, their different perspectives on implementation methods (voluntary vs mandatory approaches, individual vs societal impact focus, adequacy of existing frameworks) reflect important tensions in the field that could significantly impact how AI governance develops globally. These disagreements are constructive and reflect the complexity of translating human rights principles into practical AI governance mechanisms across different contexts and stakeholder perspectives.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers advocate for using established international human rights frameworks as the foundation for AI governance rather than relying on individual companies’ ethical principles, emphasizing the universal agreement and comprehensive nature of human rights law

Speakers

– Caitlin Kraft-Buchman
– Nathalie Stadelmann

Arguments

Human rights frameworks provide better foundation than a la carte ethical principles since they represent globally agreed standards

UN and multilateral bodies play crucial roles in translating guiding principles for technology sector through multi-stakeholder guidance development

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Both speakers emphasize the need for context-specific approaches to AI development that consider diverse perspectives and local realities, requiring multidisciplinary expertise and culturally sensitive frameworks

Speakers

– Jhalak Mrignayani Kakkar
– Caitlin Kraft-Buchman

Arguments

Global South faces different socioeconomic realities where technologies developed in the North may have different implications, requiring specific benchmarks and taxonomies

Design-based approach with intentionality is needed, including multidisciplinary teams with social scientists, human rights experts, and anthropologists

Topics

Human rights | Development | Sociocultural

Both speakers support comprehensive human rights due diligence requirements for AI systems, with regulatory frameworks that mandate transparency and verification processes to ensure non-discriminatory outcomes

Speakers

– Alexandria Walden
– Nathalie Stadelmann

Arguments

Companies should conduct ongoing human rights due diligence across all activities, including AI work, with support for risk-based regulatory approaches

Regulations should require publication of human rights due diligence and verification of data input/output for proper representation and non-discrimination

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Key takeaways

Companies must establish baseline human rights governance with top management commitment before integrating AI-specific principles, using UN Guiding Principles as foundation rather than ad hoc ethical frameworks

Effective AI risk management requires comprehensive, holistic approaches that integrate human rights considerations into technical processes through red teaming, secure AI frameworks, and cross-organizational collaboration

Global South contexts require specialized attention due to different socioeconomic realities, with need for context-specific benchmarks, taxonomies, and culturally sensitive implementation approaches

Multi-stakeholder engagement between companies, civil society, academia, and governments is essential for effective human rights integration in AI development and deployment

Risk-based regulatory approaches with mandatory human rights impact assessments for high-risk AI systems are gaining industry support, particularly following EU AI Act model

AI impacts extend beyond individual rights to broader societal changes requiring both human rights assessments and societal impact evaluations

Public procurement represents a significant leverage point for deploying rights-respecting AI at scale, particularly in developing nations where it comprises 30-40% of GDP

Resolutions and action items

GNI AI working group to complete policy brief on government interventions in AI and rights-respecting responses

BTEC to continue developing standardized human rights impact assessment tools and guidance, building on existing generative AI guidance

Participants encouraged to review BTEC’s latest Human Rights Council report on shared responsibility for AI governance

Civil society and academia in Global South to develop context-specific benchmarks and taxonomies for AI risk assessment

Companies to implement ongoing human rights due diligence across all AI activities with appropriate transparency and disclosure mechanisms

Unresolved issues

Lack of standardized human rights impact assessment methodology across international bodies

Challenges in defining appropriate risk thresholds for triggering mitigation measures in AI systems

Difficulty balancing breadth versus specificity in risk identification frameworks

Enforcement mechanisms for human rights due diligence requirements remain unclear

Geopolitical divides on human rights approaches to AI governance continue to impact global coordination

Questions about prioritizing different human rights when they conflict in AI deployment contexts

Uncertainty about optimal levels of transparency and disclosure requirements for companies

Gap between individual human rights frameworks and broader societal impact assessment needs

Suggested compromises

Risk-based regulatory approach that mandates human rights assessments only for high-risk AI applications rather than all AI systems

Strategic framing of human rights conversations in different jurisdictions based on local constitutional and cultural contexts rather than universal approach

Voluntary human rights due diligence with incentives rather than punitive enforcement mechanisms to encourage company participation

Combination of individual human rights assessments with broader societal impact evaluations to capture full scope of AI implications

Multi-stakeholder consultation processes that include affected communities in co-creation rather than top-down assessment approaches

Human rights has to be at the baseline and then integrated into those processes and frameworks… having that in place is what allows us to then get to a point where, okay, we also have AI principles on top of that. Our AI principles build on top of our commitments to the UNGPs, our GNI principles.

Speaker

Alexandria Walden (Google)

Reason

This comment established a foundational framework that human rights governance must precede AI-specific principles, challenging the common approach of treating AI ethics as separate from broader human rights commitments. It provided a clear hierarchy and integration model.

Impact

This comment set the tone for the entire discussion by establishing that human rights should be the foundational layer, not an add-on. It influenced subsequent speakers like Elina Thorström to emphasize similar points about top management commitment and comprehensive approaches, creating a consistent thread throughout the panel.

Our values, our policies, our principles, they guide our work. Irrespective of which country we are at… Although a part of AI governance and good AI governance is of course to make sure that we are compliant with the regulation. But that’s only a part of it. So the company’s culture, policy, guidelines, those are the ones that actually guide us.

Speaker

Elina Thorström (Telenor)

Reason

This insight challenged the compliance-focused approach to AI governance, arguing that internal values should drive behavior regardless of local regulatory requirements. It highlighted the tension between regulatory compliance and ethical leadership.

Impact

This comment shifted the discussion from regulatory compliance to values-driven governance, influencing later speakers to discuss the limitations of purely compliance-based approaches and the need for companies to go beyond legal requirements.

If a lot of these technologies are being developed in the North, we don’t know. They could have very different implications in the South. They’re not being developed and designed keeping in mind those contexts… even within the Indian context, within an urban part of India versus a semi-urban part of India versus a rural part of India will differ significantly.

Speaker

Jhalak Mrignayani Kakkar

Reason

This comment introduced crucial complexity about contextual differences in AI impacts, challenging the assumption that risk assessments can be universally applied. It highlighted the need for granular, context-specific approaches even within single countries.

Impact

This intervention significantly deepened the discussion by introducing the concept of contextual variation in AI impacts. It led to more nuanced conversations about the need for culturally and linguistically sensitive staff, different benchmarks for different contexts, and the limitations of one-size-fits-all approaches to human rights due diligence.

We tend to think of ethical principles, wonderful, and we love them, but they’re very a la carte, whereas human rights frameworks and international human rights law has been agreed by everybody, and as a point of departure, it really is a very good place to start, as opposed to one company’s or one academic institution’s idea of what really should be foregrounded or not.

Speaker

Caitlin Kraft-Buchman

Reason

This comment provided a sharp critique of the current approach to AI ethics, distinguishing between voluntary ethical principles and binding human rights frameworks. It challenged the legitimacy and effectiveness of company-specific ethical approaches.

Impact

This comment reframed the discussion from AI ethics to human rights law, emphasizing the importance of universally agreed standards. It reinforced the earlier points about human rights as foundational and influenced the conversation toward more concrete, legally grounded approaches rather than voluntary principles.

Many of the really big impacts that AI will have will be more at the societal rather than the individual level… I’m just wondering whether the panel thinks that those sort of bigger societal impacts or risks can be captured by a human rights-based approach, or whether we need to go a bit beyond sort of the individual human rights-based approach.

Speaker

Richard Ringfield (BSR)

Reason

This question challenged the fundamental premise of the entire panel by questioning whether human rights frameworks, traditionally focused on individual rights, are adequate for addressing systemic societal changes brought by AI. It introduced a critical limitation of the human rights approach.

Impact

This question prompted the panel to acknowledge the limitations of individual-focused human rights approaches and led to discussions about societal impact assessments, group privacy rights, and the need for broader governance frameworks. It added important nuance to the conversation by highlighting what might be missing from a purely human rights-based approach.

Risk assessment, human rights due diligence. One of the criticisms is the lack of enforceability. But perhaps that’s also where the value is, because perhaps companies are more incentivized to conduct it when they know that there isn’t a negative consequence.

Speaker

Jhalak Mrignayani Kakkar

Reason

This paradoxical insight challenged conventional thinking about enforcement, suggesting that the voluntary nature of human rights due diligence might actually be its strength rather than weakness. It introduced a counterintuitive perspective on regulatory design.

Impact

This comment introduced complexity to the discussion about mandatory versus voluntary approaches to human rights assessments. It influenced the conversation about the Korean AI law and the debate over whether to mandate human rights impact assessments, showing that enforcement mechanisms need careful consideration of incentive structures.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally shaped the discussion by establishing a clear hierarchy (human rights as foundation, not add-on), introducing critical complexity about contextual variation and Global South perspectives, challenging the adequacy of voluntary ethical approaches, and questioning whether individual rights frameworks can address systemic societal impacts. The comments created a progression from basic principles to implementation challenges to fundamental limitations, resulting in a nuanced conversation that moved beyond simple advocacy for human rights in AI to grapple with practical and theoretical challenges. The discussion evolved from ‘why’ human rights matter in AI to ‘how’ to implement them effectively across different contexts, and finally to ‘whether’ current frameworks are sufficient for AI’s societal impacts.

How to determine the threshold for requiring risk mitigation in human rights due diligence for AI systems

Speaker

Jhalak Mrignayani Kakkar

Explanation

This is a critical operational challenge for implementing effective human rights risk management, as it determines when companies must take action to address identified risks

What level of transparency should be expected from companies and required by governments in AI human rights assessments

Speaker

Jhalak Mrignayani Kakkar

Explanation

Transparency is essential for identifying emerging challenges and making human rights due diligence a meaningful exercise, but the appropriate level needs to be defined

How to balance breadth versus specificity in defining AI risks for assessment purposes

Speaker

Jhalak Mrignayani Kakkar

Explanation

Too broad a definition hinders development of specific assessment tools, while too narrow a definition may miss important harms that could arise

How to prioritize certain human rights over others in AI risk assessments, given their mutually affirming character

Speaker

Jhalak Mrignayani Kakkar

Explanation

This addresses the practical challenge of resource allocation and focus when multiple human rights may be impacted by AI systems

Development of context-specific benchmarks and taxonomies for Global South countries to identify AI risks and harms

Speaker

Jhalak Mrignayani Kakkar

Explanation

Global benchmarks may not capture the specific socioeconomic realities and societal contexts of Global South countries, requiring localized frameworks

How to strategically frame human rights conversations with governments that have varying levels of human rights embedding in their constitutions

Speaker

Jhalak Mrignayani Kakkar

Explanation

Different countries have different constitutional frameworks for human rights, requiring tailored approaches to achieve intended outcomes

Whether societal-level AI impacts can be fully captured by individual human rights-based approaches

Speaker

Richard Ringfield (BSR)

Explanation

AI’s biggest impacts may be societal rather than individual (education shifts, job displacement), raising questions about whether current human rights frameworks are sufficient

Development of the first machine learning benchmark dealing with international human rights law framework

Speaker

Caitlin Kraft-Buchman

Explanation

This would provide developers with tools to test whether their AI systems align with human rights criteria, filling a current gap in available assessment tools

How to ensure effective multi-stakeholder engagement between companies, civil society, academia, and governments for cross-learning on AI human rights

Speaker

Jhalak Mrignayani Kakkar

Explanation

Sustained collaboration is needed for knowledge sharing and developing effective human rights risk assessment frameworks

Development of standardized human rights impact assessment methodology for AI systems

Speaker

Byungil Oh (Jinbonet)

Explanation

While tools exist, there’s no standardized international methodology, and current tools often lack legal mandates for implementation

Summary

This discussion at the IGF 2025 focused on how artificial intelligence can advance sustainable development and the respective roles of public and private sectors in this process. The session was hosted by Tsinghua University and featured speakers from academia, government, and youth perspectives. Professor Yong Guo opened by emphasizing AI as a strategic technology with strong spillover effects, highlighting Tsinghua University’s commitment to intelligent society governance through their Institute for Intelligent Society Governance established in 2019. He stressed three key areas: talent development with interdisciplinary education, strengthening collaborative mechanisms across sectors, and deepening international cooperation.

Ms. Xuanyun You from China’s Cyberspace Administration outlined the Chinese government’s approach to AI governance, including President Xi Jinping’s Global AI Governance Initiative and China’s proposal for AI capacity building action plans. She detailed China’s comprehensive regulatory framework encompassing AI policy rules, data security laws, and online information governance, emphasizing principles of balancing development with security and implementing inclusive supervision. Youth Ambassador Xin Yi Ding presented the younger generation’s perspective, acknowledging AI’s benefits in areas like fire prediction, autonomous vehicles, and rural economic development, while warning about risks including data monopolies, algorithmic biases, and the dangerous proliferation of deepfakes and misinformation.

Professor Rony Medaglia from Copenhagen Business School provided research-based insights on AI’s dual impact on sustainability, presenting positive examples in efficiency improvements, data governance, and sustainable business models, while cautioning about negative effects including high energy consumption, water usage for server cooling, rebound effects, and embedded biases in AI systems. The discussion concluded that realizing AI’s potential for sustainable development requires careful mitigation of risks while maximizing opportunities through coordinated international efforts.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **AI’s Role in Advancing Sustainable Development Goals**: The discussion emphasized how AI can contribute to achieving the UN’s 2030 Sustainable Development Goals through improved efficiency, data governance, and sustainable business models, with concrete examples like water management systems and pollution monitoring.

– **International Cooperation and Governance Frameworks**: Speakers highlighted the importance of global collaboration in AI governance, including China’s Global AI Governance Initiative and UN resolutions on AI capacity building, particularly focusing on helping developing countries benefit from AI advancements.

– **Balancing AI Opportunities with Risks**: The conversation addressed both the positive potential of AI (enhanced public services, educational access, economic opportunities) and significant risks (misinformation, deepfakes, algorithmic bias, energy consumption, and threats to public trust).

– **Youth Perspective and Generational Responsibility**: A key focus was placed on the younger generation’s unique position as “digital natives” who must navigate AI’s challenges while taking responsibility for ethical AI development and promoting digital literacy across society.

– **Public-Private Sector Collaboration**: The discussion emphasized the need for coordinated efforts between government, industry, academia, and research institutions to develop appropriate regulations, standards, and ethical frameworks for AI development.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to explore how artificial intelligence can be leveraged to advance sustainable development while addressing the respective roles of public and private sectors in this process. The session sought to bring together diverse perspectives from academia, government, youth, and international research to identify both opportunities and challenges in using AI for global sustainability goals.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a consistently optimistic yet cautious tone throughout. Speakers were enthusiastic about AI’s potential to solve global challenges and advance sustainability, but they balanced this optimism with realistic acknowledgment of significant risks and challenges. The tone was collaborative and forward-looking, emphasizing the need for international cooperation and responsible development. There was no notable shift in tone during the conversation – it remained professionally optimistic while being appropriately mindful of the complexities involved in AI governance and sustainable development.

Speakers

– **Cynthia Su** – Deputy Dean of Tsinghua Range Joint Research Institute for Intelligent Society at Tsinghua University, China; Session moderator

– **Yong Guo** – Vice Chair of University Council of Tsinghua University; Professor

– **Xuanyun You** – Associate Deputy Director-General of the Bureau of Law-Based Cyberspace Governance at the Cyberspace Administration of China

– **Xin Yi Ding** – Youth Ambassador of the Institute of Intelligent Society, Governments of Tsinghua University

– **Rony Medaglia** – Professor at Copenhagen Business School (also referred to as “Ron and Anthony Meddalia” in introduction, but appears to be the same person based on context)

Additional speakers:

None identified beyond the provided speakers names list.

# Discussion Report: AI for Sustainable Development – Public and Private Sector Roles

## Executive Summary

This session at the 20th United Nations Internet Governance Forum was hosted by the Tsinghua Range Joint Research Institute for Intelligent Society. The listening talk brought together speakers from Chinese academia and government, international research, and youth advocacy to examine how artificial intelligence can advance sustainable development goals and the roles of public and private sectors in this process.

The discussion featured four main speakers: Professor Yong Guo, Vice Chair of University Council at Tsinghua University; Ms. Xuanyun You, Associate Deputy Director-General of the Bureau of Law-Based Cyberspace Governance at China’s Cyberspace Administration; Youth Ambassador Xin Yi Ding from the Institute of Intelligent Society Governance; and Professor Rony Medaglia from Copenhagen Business School. The conversation addressed both AI’s potential benefits for sustainability and the significant challenges that must be addressed.

## Detailed Discussion Analysis

### Academic and Institutional Framework

Professor Yong Guo opened by referencing President Xi Jinping’s statement that AI “has strong spillover effects that can drive broader progress” as a strategic technology driving scientific revolution and industrial transformation. He highlighted Tsinghua University’s Institute for Intelligent Society Governance, established in 2019 with Professor Su Jun as founding dean, which focuses on fundamental theories and core policy issues of AI integration into society.

Guo outlined three critical areas requiring attention: developing talent through interdisciplinary education that combines technical skills with social responsibility; strengthening collaborative mechanisms across government, industry, academia, and research institutions; and deepening international cooperation through technology exchanges, standard setting, and financial integration to ensure equitable sharing of digital dividends. He emphasized that universities must lead AI development to serve communities and enhance accessibility through interdisciplinary research approaches.

### Government Policy and Regulatory Approach

Ms. Xuanyun You presented China’s comprehensive approach to AI governance, detailing President Xi Jinping’s Global AI Governance Initiative emphasizing people-centered, AI-for-good principles. She referenced specific UN resolutions, including the 17th session resolution on “Seize the Opportunities of Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy AI Systems for Sustainable Development” and the 1978 session resolution on “Enhancing International Cooperation on Capacity Building of AI.”

You outlined China’s regulatory philosophy of “giving equal importance to development and security, innovation and governance,” implementing “inclusive, prudent, and classified and graded supervision of AI.” She detailed China’s legal framework including the “Next Generation AI Development Plan,” “interim measures for the management of generative AI services,” and comprehensive policies covering AI governance, data security, and online information management.

The government’s approach focuses on reducing biases, misinformation, and security threats while building capacity in computing power, data management, and governance structures. You emphasized China’s commitment to international cooperation through AI Capacity Building Action Plans designed to help developing nations strengthen their AI capabilities and participate in the global digital economy.

### Youth Perspective and Digital Literacy

Youth Ambassador Xin Yi Ding opened with direct questions: “Have you ever been tricked by the information online or paused before sharing a viral news thinking it might be AI-generated? These are not just hypothetical questions, they are profound signs of a huge shift.” She demonstrated how AI can create convincing deepfakes that blur lines between reality and fabrication, potentially harming public trust and democratic governance.

Ding highlighted positive AI applications including fire pattern prediction systems, autonomous vehicles with collision avoidance technology, and AI-powered educational platforms. She provided a detailed example of rural economic development: a golden retriever in Zigui County helping sell oranges (Mao Mao fruit) through AI-powered marketing, generating 4 billion yuan in sales by March 2024.

She emphasized that young people bear responsibility in both public and private spheres for AI governance, rejecting “symbolic participations” and demanding substantive involvement in shaping AI development. Ding stressed the need for improved AI literacy to help everyone understand data usage and algorithmic logic while developing critical thinking skills to guard against AI-generated misinformation.

### International Research and Environmental Considerations

Professor Rony Medaglia provided research-based insights on AI’s dual impact on sustainability, identifying three key areas: efficiency improvements, enhanced data governance, and sustainable business model development. He presented concrete examples including Aarhus city using AI sensors in water grids to anticipate usage and reduce waste, Danish drone companies monitoring emissions, and blockchain-AI combinations enabling product provenance tracking for environmental verification.

Medaglia introduced critical data about AI’s environmental costs: “generating one single image with a large language model uses the same amount of CO2 as charging your mobile phone up to 50%.” He detailed how generative AI systems require significant energy resources and create substantial water withdrawal demands for server cooling – “six times the whole country of Denmark for a whole year of water.”

He discussed rebound effects, where efficiency gains can lead to increased resource consumption, using car-sharing applications potentially reducing public transportation use as an example. This highlighted how AI’s benefits can have unintended consequences requiring systems-level thinking rather than assuming efficiency automatically equals sustainability.

## Key Areas of Agreement

All speakers acknowledged AI’s transformative potential for sustainable development across sectors including disaster prediction, resource management, urban governance, and business model innovation. There was consensus on the necessity of multi-stakeholder collaboration involving government, industry, academia, and international institutions, with particular attention to ensuring developing countries can participate in AI advancements.

Speakers agreed that AI poses serious risks requiring attention alongside its benefits, including bias and discrimination, misinformation and deepfakes, energy consumption and environmental impact, and potential threats to public trust and governance systems.

## Different Emphases and Approaches

While agreeing on fundamental principles, speakers emphasized different implementation approaches. The government perspective focused on comprehensive regulatory frameworks and international cooperation initiatives. The academic perspective emphasized institutional leadership and interdisciplinary research. The youth perspective prioritized individual empowerment through AI literacy and meaningful participation in governance processes. The international research perspective stressed evidence-based understanding of both benefits and risks, particularly environmental impacts and systemic effects.

## Ongoing Challenges

Several challenges were identified without complete resolution. The environmental paradox of AI – where systems designed to improve sustainability may contribute to environmental degradation through energy consumption – requires frameworks to measure net environmental impact. The crisis of AI-generated misinformation and deepfakes needs technical and policy solutions for detection and prevention at scale.

International cooperation frameworks, while widely endorsed, require detailed implementation across diverse political and economic systems. Ensuring AI literacy reaches all populations, especially in developing countries, remains a practical challenge despite being identified as essential.

## Conclusion

The discussion demonstrated understanding of AI’s complex relationship with sustainable development among key stakeholders. Rather than presenting AI simply as a sustainability tool, the conversation examined AI as a transformative force that challenges our capacity for collective action on sustainability issues.

The combination of policy, academic, youth, and international research perspectives created dialogue that addressed governance, equity, and social trust in the digital age. While significant challenges remain, the consensus on principles and complementary stakeholder perspectives suggest a foundation for continued collaboration in developing AI governance frameworks that can advance sustainable development goals while addressing risks and ensuring equitable participation in shaping our technological future.

Cynthia Su: Ladies and gentlemen, good afternoon. Welcome to this listening talk at IGF 2025, AI for Sustainable Development, the Roles of the Public and Private Sectors. I’m Cynthia Su, the Deputy Dean of Tsinghua Range Joint Research Institute for Intelligent Society at Tsinghua University, China. And I’m honored to serve as your moderator for today’s session. First of all, on behalf of the organizers, Tsinghua University, I would like to extend our warmest welcome to our distinguished guests and audience. Today’s listening talk will focus on how AI can help advance sustainable development. And today we are honored to have four distinguished guests to join us. First of all, I’d like to welcome Professor Yong Guo, the Vice Chair of University Council of Tsinghua University to deliver the opening remarks. Welcome, Professor Guo.

Yong Guo: Thank you, Xin, for your brief introduction. Distinguished guests, colleagues and friends, ladies and gentlemen, it’s a true pleasure to join you at the 20th United Nations Internet Governance Forum to explore some of the most pressing questions of our time. How can AI contribute to sustainable development? And how are the respective roles of the public and private sectors evolving in this process? On behalf of Tsinghua University, the host of this listening talk, I would like to extend my warmest welcome and heartfelt thanks to all the distinguished experts and guests for being here today. Sustainable development in the AI era has become a central theme in global governance. Chinese President Mr. Xi Jinping has emphasized that AI is a strategic technology and the forefront of today’s scientific revolution and industrial transformation, with strong spillover effects that can drive broader progress. Universities are engines for knowledge and innovation, so we must take the active role in leading AI to serve communities and accessibility. As AI is becoming more and more integrated into society, Tsinghua is committed to leading in AI research and applications. We are also pursuing interdisciplinary studies that investigate how to govern a future intelligent society. In China, we refer to this concept as intelligent society governance. We are deeply mindful of the societal challenges that AI brings. In response, Tsinghua University established the Institute for Intelligent Society Governance in 2019, with Professor Su Jun serve as its founding dean. This institute brings together the university’s multidisciplinary strategies to conduct in-depth research on the fundamental theories and core policy issues of the intelligent society. Over the years, the RISG has made significant contributions in key areas, including AI and information cocoons, social polarization, employment transformation, and energy transition. Our work represents an important exploration of Chinese solutions for intelligent society governance. These efforts have received strong support from the Chinese governments and broad recognition from across the society. The RISG has delivered exceptional outcomes in scientific research, talent cultivation, international collaboration, and standard setting, offering valuable Chinese insights to the global discourse on intelligent society governance. We are honored to host this lightning talk today, and in this context, I would like to share three reflections. First, we must focus on talent development. This means advancing interdisciplinary education in AI and intelligent society governance to cultivate a new generation of talent, individuals with both technical proficiency and a strong sense of social responsibility. Secondly, we must strengthen collaborative mechanisms. Deeper collaboration across government, industry, academia, and research institutions is needed to tackle both theoretical and practical challenges in using AI for sustainable development and to elevate our innovation and applications to new heights. Thirdly, we must deepen international cooperation. By advancing global exchanges in technology, standard setting, and financial integration, we can ensure digital dividends are shared more widely and equitably. In closing, I wish this session great success. I look forward to hearing the diverse insights from all the speakers today and to joining forces in shaping AI’s development towards a more sustainable and equitable future for all. Thank you. Thank you.

Cynthia Su: Thank you. Thank you, Professor Guo, for your inspiring remarks. Now I’d like to invite Ms. Xuanyun You, the Associate Deputy Director-General of the Bureau of Law-Based Cyberspace Governance at the Cyberspace Administration of China. She will speak about how the Chinese government is actively promoting the development of international frameworks and implementing national policies, regulations, and standards of AI towards sustainable development. Welcome.

Xuanyun You: Thank you. As you know, AI has exerted profound influence on socioeconomic development and the progress of human civilizations, bringing unprecedented development opportunities to the world. While present unprecedented risks and challenges, AI can turbocharge stable development, but transforming its potential into reality requires AI that reduces biases, misinformation, and security threats, building capacity on computing power, data, and governance, global coordinating to build a safe, secure, and inclusive AI that is accessible to all. Last year, the 17th session of the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution entitled, Seize the Opportunities of Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy AI Systems for Sustainable Development. It’s the first ever resolution negotiated at the UN General Assembly to establish a global consensus approach to AI conference. The resolution encouraged member states to promote safe, secure, and trustworthy AI systems to advance sustainable development by developing regulatory and governance approaches and frameworks related to AI systems. China is an active advocate and practitioner of global AI governance. In 2023, President Xi Jinping proposed the Global AI Governance Initiative, systematically expanding on the Chinese plan in three aspects, AI development, security, and governance. The initiative suggested that development AI should adhere to the principle of people-centered, AI for good, to ensure that AI always develops in a way that is beneficial to human civilization. We support the rule of AI in promoting sustainable development. and Tackling Global Challenges. To implement the initiative, National Technical Committee on Cyber Security and Standardization Administration of China released the AI Safety Governance Framework. In 2024, the 1978 session of the UN General Assembly unanimously adopted the resolution entitled Enhancing International Cooperation on Capacity Building of AI, proposed by China. The resolution aims to achieve inclusive, beneficial and sustainable development of AI, encourages international cooperation and practical actions to help countries, especially developing countries, strengthen their AI capacity building and support the United Nations in playing a central role in international cooperation. To implement the resolution, China proposed the AI Capacity Building Action Plan for Good and for AI, and put forward five visions and goals and attend China’s actions, which aim to bridge the AI digital device, especially to help the global South benefit actively from AI developments, and promote the implementation of the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. China has formulated and implemented laws and regulations on the development and governance of AI. First, AI policy and rules and standards, including Next Generation AI Development Plan formulated by the State Council, six regulations and rules formulated by the Cyberspace Administration of China, such as interim measures for the management of generative AI services, measures for the identification of synthetic contacts generated by AI, and several standards, including basic security requirements for generative AI services. Second, data security governance laws and regulations related to AI, such as data security law, personal information protection law, and regulations on the management of network data security. Third, online information governance regulations and rules related to AI, such as regulation on the protection of minors in cyberspace, and the rules on the governance of online violence information. In legislation and law enforcement, China adheres to the principles of giving equal importance to development and security, innovation, and governance, takes effective measures to encourage the innovative development of AI, and implements inclusive, prudent, and classified and graded supervision of AI. In the development and application of AI, China protects personal privacy and data security, prohibits theft, alteration, leakage, and other illegal collection and use of personal information, protects international property rights, and prevents and manages risks such as false information, adverse biases, and system attacks. In the future, China will speed up the formulation and improvement of relevant policies, regulations, application specifications, and ethical standards, build a technical monitoring, risk warning, and emergency response system, improve the development and management mechanism of generative AI, establish an AI security supervision system, ensure that every stage of the AI life cycle is more safe, reliable, controllable, and equitable, and will continuously counter international exchanges and cooperation in AI development, security, and governance to promote sustainable development. Thank you so much.

Cynthia Su: Okay. Thank you, Ms. Yu. Now, I’d like to welcome Ms. Xin Yi Ding, the Youth Ambassador of the Institute of Intelligent Society, Governments of Tsinghua University, to share from the young perspective.

Xin Yi Ding: Good afternoon. Honorable guests, ladies, and gentlemen, have you ever been tricked by the information online or paused before sharing a viral news thinking it might be AI-generated? These are not just hypothetical questions, they are profound signs of a huge shift. Artificial intelligence is not just changing how we access information, but also the very concept of truth and trust. As a part of the generation that creates the future, we’re born into a coexistence with artificial intelligence. Its influence shifts every corner of society, from individuals to organizations, from governments to markets. Now, let’s be clear. AI creates opportunities for many fronts, including public service, urban governance, and sustainable development. Advanced AI models, like the one I show, the fire patterns, predicts fire patterns before it spreads. And autonomous cars, like mobile eyes, could enhance road safety by providing collision avoidance systems. And also, air-powered platforms provide educational opportunities to underserved areas. With each innovation, we make human lives more efficient, convenient, and safe. AI also creates opportunities for groups unseen by the mainstream society. In rural China, farmers started selling Mao Mao fruit, named after a golden retriever who took bites on oranges. And the story went viral online, which revitalized the economy of Zigui County in rural China. By March 2024, it generated 4 billion yuan in annual sales. Among other similar cases, AI also demonstrates the power not just to benefit a few, but also to uplift many. Yet, as we embrace AI’s promises, we must also see its risks. Data monopolies, algorithmic biases, information overload, and high energy consumption, all of which could widen the gap between the ones with power and the ones without. Let’s take this information as an example. Our generation habitually relies on AI, yet AI can generate false information while presenting it as truth. This photo, it shows me, but I’ve never had that hairstyle, never got a sweater like this. It was actually swapped with a face of the lady there, and it’s generated by Pika Art. So AI has immense power that’s misleading. Imagine seeing a pornography of a friend online. How many seconds would it take you to doubt if it’s deepfaked? When AI can so easily blur the lines between reality and falsehood, such fabrication can cause great harm. And I’m presenting a video right here. It’s IGF. It’s also AI-generated. None of this is real. And this is not just a personal, interpersonal relationship danger. It’s also a crisis in terms of public trust. When a world leader’s face can be put into any video, when seeing is no longer believing, our executional trust crumbles. And that is why our generation bears the dual responsibility to act in both public and private spheres. This begins with imperative of intelligent society governance, which is to remedy the impact of AI and putting a focus on a human and ethical aspect of AI society. And first, at individual level, we’ll be empowered with cognitive tools to guard against AI hallucination, to question sorts, cultivate critical thinking. Second, as collective, we young people cannot just settle for symbolic participations. We must also push for ethical frameworks and regulations that keep pace with AI’s rapid growth. Thirdly, we need to improve AI literacy for everyone. People need to understand how data is used and collected and learn logic behind algorithms. And our mission, as Yuan stated, it’s to leave no one behind. We have a long journey ahead in the future shaped by AI, but I believe we’re ready to take the right steps.

Cynthia Su: Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Ding, for your excellent insights on the importance of youth in promoting a sustainable development of AI. And finally, it’s my great honor to invite our last keynote speaker, the Professor Ron and Anthony Meddalia from Copenhagen Business School. Welcome.

Rony Medaglia: Thank you very much. So when we talk about artificial intelligence impacts on sustainability, of course, a useful thing to do is look at what data shows us and what scholarly research shows us. So I’ll give you a little bit of insights and you’re free to look up into the sources of everything I say in the QR codes that you see in the slides, starting from my own profile as professor at the Copenhagen Business School. When we talk about potentials, basically it’s very hard to think of any achievement of any of the SDGs without using artificial intelligence. Research shows us that the potentials are really in three areas. Efficiency, data governance and sustainable business models. So here are some examples from research. This is an example that really shows us how you can use AI for increasing efficiency for SDG goals. In the city of Aarhus in Denmark, where I live and work, there has been a use of sensors in the drinkable water grid of the city to anticipate the use of drinkable water throughout the territory and therefore reduce waste of such a precious resource. So this is clearly an example in line with SDG number six about clean water and sanitation. Another key area of use for AI is related to sustainability data governance. This is an example of a Danish company that uses drone technology to collect data about emissions from factories or from physical locations that are very hard to reach otherwise. And by feeding this data into machine learning, they’re able to anticipate levels of pollution in an area and inform policies. The third potential area is about creating new sustainable business models. This is a Danish company that is using a blockchain together with artificial intelligence to track the provenance of products such as design products, in this case a pair of shoes, whereby the consumer, by scanning a QR code, can identify whether that pair of shoes has been produced in ways that are environmentally friendly. However, the other side research shows us of AI impacts on sustainability are also negative. So we do know that, for instance, generative AI, the new large language models, use a lot of energy. So the flip side of this is that, for instance, research shows us that to generate one single image with a large language model, such as chat GPT, uses the same amount of CO2 as charging your mobile phone up to 50%. These servers that do the strong computing for large language models also need to be cooled down. So it has been calculated recently that the global AI demand may be accountable in two years from now for a water withdrawal equal to six times the whole country of Denmark for a whole year of water. Another element that cannot be understated is the so-called rebound effects. When we are able to distribute resources more efficiently, think about the sharing of cars that is done through new applications, this could be unintended consequences. For instance, people use less of public transportation, and then we will have more traffic on the streets. So how do we account for these unintended consequences? Last but not least, with AI, we see a lot of potential for bias and discrimination. If you ask a large language model to produce an image, for instance, of a CEO, you will always have, most of the times, a white young male. But if you ask for an HR manager or a nurse, you will always have a woman. So the potential for increasing discrimination, digital divide, and bias is sort of embedded in the way AI works in many cases, and it has to be mitigated. So the bottom line is that we need to have an understanding of what research shows us besides the desiderata of AI on sustainability, and therefore mitigate the risk in order to achieve the potentials of artificial intelligence for sustainable development goals. Thank you very much.

Cynthia Su: Thank you for your excellent speech. So dear guests and audience members, Today’s keynote speakers have shared from various perspectives how AI empowers sustainable development, its potential risks and practices for promoting AI sustainable growth, inspiring deep reflection among us. Due to time constraints, today’s event comes to an end. Thank you very much, and I’m looking forward to seeing you next year. The last but not the least, tomorrow we’ll have the session at 9am at Workshop 3. I’m looking forward to seeing you there as well. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Agreement points

AI has transformative potential for sustainable development across multiple sectors

Speakers

– Yong Guo
– Xuanyun You
– Xin Yi Ding
– Rony Medaglia

Arguments

AI is a strategic technology driving scientific revolution and industrial transformation with strong spillover effects

AI can turbocharge sustainable development by reducing biases, misinformation, and security threats while building capacity in computing power, data, and governance

AI creates opportunities in public service, urban governance, and sustainable development through applications like fire pattern prediction and autonomous vehicles

AI potentials for sustainability exist in three key areas: efficiency, data governance, and sustainable business models

Summary

All speakers acknowledge AI’s significant potential to advance sustainable development goals through various applications including disaster prediction, resource management, urban governance, and creating new business models

Topics

Development | Economic | Infrastructure

Multi-stakeholder collaboration is essential for effective AI governance

Speakers

– Yong Guo
– Xuanyun You
– Cynthia Su

Arguments

Deeper collaboration across government, industry, academia, and research institutions is needed to tackle AI challenges

China proposed AI Capacity Building Action Plan to bridge the digital divide and help developing countries benefit from AI developments

Academic institutions like Tsinghua University play crucial roles in hosting international dialogue on AI governance

Summary

Speakers emphasize the need for collaborative approaches involving government, industry, academia, and international institutions to address AI governance challenges effectively

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory | Sociocultural

AI poses significant risks that must be addressed alongside its benefits

Speakers

– Xuanyun You
– Xin Yi Ding
– Rony Medaglia

Arguments

AI can turbocharge sustainable development by reducing biases, misinformation, and security threats while building capacity in computing power, data, and governance

AI presents unprecedented risks including data monopolies, algorithmic biases, information overload, and high energy consumption

AI systems exhibit embedded bias and discrimination, often reinforcing stereotypes in generated content

Summary

Speakers recognize that while AI offers tremendous opportunities, it also presents serious challenges including bias, misinformation, energy consumption, and potential for discrimination that require careful management

Topics

Human rights | Development | Cybersecurity

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize the importance of international cooperation and capacity building to ensure equitable access to AI benefits, particularly for developing countries

Speakers

– Yong Guo
– Xuanyun You

Arguments

Global exchanges in technology, standard setting, and financial integration are necessary to ensure equitable sharing of digital dividends

China proposed AI Capacity Building Action Plan to bridge the digital divide and help developing countries benefit from AI developments

Topics

Development | Economic | Infrastructure

Both speakers highlight how AI systems can perpetuate harmful biases and create misleading content, emphasizing the need for critical evaluation of AI outputs

Speakers

– Xin Yi Ding
– Rony Medaglia

Arguments

AI can generate false information and deepfakes that blur the lines between reality and falsehood, threatening public trust

AI systems exhibit embedded bias and discrimination, often reinforcing stereotypes in generated content

Topics

Human rights | Sociocultural

Both speakers emphasize the critical role of universities and academic institutions in leading AI research, governance discussions, and ensuring AI serves broader societal needs

Speakers

– Yong Guo
– Cynthia Su

Arguments

Universities must take active roles in leading AI to serve communities and accessibility through interdisciplinary research

Academic institutions like Tsinghua University play crucial roles in hosting international dialogue on AI governance

Topics

Development | Sociocultural

Unexpected consensus

Environmental impact of AI systems

Speakers

– Xin Yi Ding
– Rony Medaglia

Arguments

AI presents unprecedented risks including data monopolies, algorithmic biases, information overload, and high energy consumption

Generative AI uses significant energy resources and creates substantial water withdrawal demands for server cooling

Explanation

Despite representing different perspectives (youth advocate vs. academic researcher), both speakers independently identified AI’s environmental impact as a significant concern, with specific attention to energy consumption – an issue that might not be immediately obvious when discussing AI for sustainability

Topics

Development | Infrastructure

Need for comprehensive regulatory frameworks

Speakers

– Xuanyun You
– Xin Yi Ding

Arguments

China has formulated comprehensive laws and regulations including AI policy rules, data security governance, and online information governance

Young people bear dual responsibility to act in both public and private spheres regarding AI governance

Explanation

Unexpected alignment between a government official emphasizing existing regulatory frameworks and a youth representative calling for stronger ethical frameworks and regulations, showing cross-generational agreement on the need for robust governance structures

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights

Overall assessment

Summary

The speakers demonstrated strong consensus on AI’s transformative potential for sustainable development, the need for multi-stakeholder collaboration, and the importance of addressing AI risks alongside benefits. Key areas of agreement include the necessity of international cooperation, the role of academic institutions, and the recognition of both opportunities and challenges presented by AI systems.

Consensus level

High level of consensus with complementary perspectives rather than conflicting viewpoints. The speakers approached the topic from different angles (government policy, academic research, youth advocacy, international cooperation) but arrived at similar conclusions about the need for balanced, collaborative approaches to AI governance for sustainable development. This strong alignment suggests a mature understanding of AI governance challenges and indicates potential for effective policy coordination across different stakeholder groups.

Different viewpoints

Approach to AI risk mitigation and regulation

Speakers

– Xuanyun You
– Rony Medaglia

Arguments

China has formulated comprehensive laws and regulations including AI policy rules, data security governance, and online information governance

AI systems exhibit embedded bias and discrimination, often reinforcing stereotypes in generated content

Summary

You emphasizes China’s comprehensive regulatory framework as a solution to AI challenges, while Medaglia focuses on the inherent technical limitations and biases embedded in AI systems that require mitigation beyond regulatory approaches

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights

Primary focus for addressing AI challenges

Speakers

– Xin Yi Ding
– Yong Guo

Arguments

The younger generation needs cognitive tools to guard against AI hallucination and must cultivate critical thinking

Universities must take active roles in leading AI to serve communities and accessibility through interdisciplinary research

Summary

Ding emphasizes individual-level cognitive skills and critical thinking as primary solutions, while Guo focuses on institutional leadership and interdisciplinary research approaches

Topics

Sociocultural | Development

Unexpected differences

Environmental impact prioritization

Speakers

– Rony Medaglia
– Other speakers

Arguments

Generative AI uses significant energy resources and creates substantial water withdrawal demands for server cooling

Explanation

Medaglia was the only speaker to explicitly quantify and emphasize the environmental costs of AI operations, while other speakers focused primarily on AI’s potential benefits for sustainability without addressing its environmental footprint. This represents an unexpected gap in a discussion about sustainable development

Topics

Development | Infrastructure

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion showed relatively low levels of direct disagreement, with speakers generally complementing rather than contradicting each other’s perspectives. Main areas of difference centered on implementation approaches (regulatory vs. technical vs. educational) and priority focus (institutional vs. individual vs. international cooperation)

Disagreement level

Low to moderate disagreement level. The speakers represented different stakeholder perspectives (government, academia, youth, international research) and their differences were more about emphasis and approach rather than fundamental opposition. This suggests a constructive dialogue environment but may indicate insufficient critical examination of competing approaches to AI governance and sustainable development

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize the importance of international cooperation and capacity building to ensure equitable access to AI benefits, particularly for developing countries

Speakers

– Yong Guo
– Xuanyun You

Arguments

Global exchanges in technology, standard setting, and financial integration are necessary to ensure equitable sharing of digital dividends

China proposed AI Capacity Building Action Plan to bridge the digital divide and help developing countries benefit from AI developments

Topics

Development | Economic | Infrastructure

Both speakers highlight how AI systems can perpetuate harmful biases and create misleading content, emphasizing the need for critical evaluation of AI outputs

Speakers

– Xin Yi Ding
– Rony Medaglia

Arguments

AI can generate false information and deepfakes that blur the lines between reality and falsehood, threatening public trust

AI systems exhibit embedded bias and discrimination, often reinforcing stereotypes in generated content

Topics

Human rights | Sociocultural

Both speakers emphasize the critical role of universities and academic institutions in leading AI research, governance discussions, and ensuring AI serves broader societal needs

Speakers

– Yong Guo
– Cynthia Su

Arguments

Universities must take active roles in leading AI to serve communities and accessibility through interdisciplinary research

Academic institutions like Tsinghua University play crucial roles in hosting international dialogue on AI governance

Topics

Development | Sociocultural

Key takeaways

AI has dual potential for sustainable development – offering significant opportunities through efficiency gains, improved data governance, and new business models, while also presenting serious risks including energy consumption, bias, and misinformation

Successful AI governance requires a multi-stakeholder approach involving government, industry, academia, and civil society working together across national boundaries

China is positioning itself as a leader in AI governance through comprehensive policy frameworks, international initiatives, and the concept of ‘intelligent society governance’

Youth perspectives are critical for AI governance as the generation most affected by AI integration, emphasizing the need for AI literacy, critical thinking, and ethical frameworks

International cooperation and capacity building are essential to ensure AI benefits are shared equitably, particularly helping developing countries bridge the digital divide

Real-world applications demonstrate AI’s tangible benefits for sustainability, from water management in Danish cities to economic revitalization in rural China

The challenge lies in maximizing AI’s positive potential while effectively mitigating risks through proper governance, regulation, and education

Resolutions and action items

China will speed up formulation and improvement of AI policies, regulations, application specifications, and ethical standards

Build technical monitoring, risk warning, and emergency response systems for AI

Improve development and management mechanisms for generative AI and establish AI security supervision systems

Continue international exchanges and cooperation in AI development, security, and governance

Advance interdisciplinary education in AI and intelligent society governance to cultivate talent with technical proficiency and social responsibility

Implement the AI Capacity Building Action Plan to help developing countries strengthen AI capabilities

Promote AI literacy improvement for everyone to understand data usage and algorithmic logic

Unresolved issues

How to effectively address the rebound effects and unintended consequences of AI efficiency gains

Specific mechanisms for ensuring AI systems remain ‘safe, reliable, controllable, and equitable’ throughout their lifecycle

Concrete strategies for mitigating AI’s significant energy consumption and environmental impact

Detailed frameworks for international coordination on AI standards and governance across different political and economic systems

Methods for effectively combating deepfakes and AI-generated misinformation while preserving innovation

Specific approaches for eliminating algorithmic bias and discrimination embedded in AI systems

How to balance AI innovation with prudent regulation without stifling technological progress

Suggested compromises

China’s approach of ‘giving equal importance to development and security, innovation and governance’ as a balanced regulatory philosophy

Implementation of ‘inclusive, prudent, and classified and graded supervision of AI’ rather than blanket restrictions

Focus on capacity building and international cooperation to address the digital divide rather than restricting AI development

Emphasis on education and AI literacy as a complement to regulatory approaches

Multi-stakeholder governance involving both public and private sectors rather than government-only or market-only solutions

Have you ever been tricked by the information online or paused before sharing a viral news thinking it might be AI-generated? These are not just hypothetical questions, they are profound signs of a huge shift. Artificial intelligence is not just changing how we access information, but also the very concept of truth and trust.

Speaker

Xin Yi Ding

Reason

This opening immediately reframes the discussion from abstract policy considerations to visceral, personal experiences that resonate with everyone. It introduces the fundamental epistemological crisis that AI creates – challenging our basic ability to distinguish truth from falsehood, which is foundational to all other discussions about AI governance and sustainability.

Impact

This comment shifted the discussion from high-level policy frameworks to concrete, relatable concerns. It established a more urgent tone and introduced the critical theme of trust erosion that underlies many AI governance challenges, setting up the need for the practical solutions discussed later.

When AI can so easily blur the lines between reality and falsehood, such fabrication can cause great harm… When a world leader’s face can be put into any video, when seeing is no longer believing, our executional trust crumbles.

Speaker

Xin Yi Ding

Reason

This insight connects individual-level deception (deepfakes of friends) to systemic threats to democratic governance and public trust. It demonstrates how AI’s impact on sustainability isn’t just about energy consumption or efficiency, but about the fundamental social fabric that enables collective action on sustainability challenges.

Impact

This comment elevated the discussion beyond technical solutions to examine the societal prerequisites for sustainable development. It highlighted how AI threatens the social trust necessary for collective action on sustainability, adding a crucial dimension that the other speakers hadn’t addressed.

However, the other side research shows us of AI impacts on sustainability are also negative… to generate one single image with a large language model uses the same amount of CO2 as charging your mobile phone up to 50%

Speaker

Rony Medaglia

Reason

This provides concrete, quantifiable data that starkly illustrates AI’s environmental costs in terms everyone can understand. It transforms abstract concerns about energy consumption into tangible comparisons, making the sustainability paradox of AI viscerally clear.

Impact

This comment introduced hard data that balanced the optimistic framing from earlier speakers. It forced a reckoning with AI’s direct environmental costs and established the need for the nuanced approach to AI governance that considers both benefits and costs simultaneously.

Another element that cannot be understated is the so-called rebound effects. When we are able to distribute resources more efficiently… this could be unintended consequences. For instance, people use less of public transportation, and then we will have more traffic on the streets.

Speaker

Rony Medaglia

Reason

This introduces the sophisticated concept of rebound effects – how efficiency gains can paradoxically lead to increased resource consumption. It challenges the linear thinking that efficiency automatically equals sustainability and introduces systems thinking to the discussion.

Impact

This comment added crucial complexity to the discussion by showing how AI’s benefits can backfire in unexpected ways. It demonstrated the need for holistic, systems-level thinking in AI governance rather than focusing solely on direct effects, influencing how we must approach AI policy for sustainability.

AI has immense power that’s misleading… our generation bears the dual responsibility to act in both public and private spheres… We young people cannot just settle for symbolic participations. We must also push for ethical frameworks and regulations that keep pace with AI’s rapid growth.

Speaker

Xin Yi Ding

Reason

This rejects tokenistic youth involvement and demands substantive participation in AI governance. It connects generational responsibility with the urgency of AI development, arguing that those who will live longest with AI’s consequences must have real agency in shaping its development.

Impact

This comment challenged traditional power structures in technology governance and established youth not as beneficiaries of adult decision-making, but as essential actors with unique stakes and perspectives. It added urgency to the governance discussion by emphasizing the pace of AI development relative to regulatory responses.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally transformed what could have been a conventional policy discussion into a nuanced examination of AI’s paradoxical relationship with sustainability. Xin Yi Ding’s contributions introduced existential questions about truth and trust that reframed sustainability as not just an environmental challenge but a social and epistemological one. Rony Medaglia’s data-driven insights provided the empirical grounding that balanced optimistic policy statements with hard realities about AI’s environmental costs and systemic complexities. Together, these comments created a more sophisticated understanding of AI governance that moves beyond simple benefit-risk calculations to consider feedback loops, unintended consequences, and the social prerequisites for sustainable development. The discussion evolved from presenting AI as a tool for sustainability to examining AI as a force that fundamentally challenges our capacity for collective action on sustainability challenges.

How can we effectively measure and mitigate the unintended consequences of AI implementation, particularly rebound effects in sustainability initiatives?

Speaker

Rony Medaglia

Explanation

Professor Medaglia highlighted rebound effects as a significant concern, using the example of car-sharing apps potentially reducing public transportation use and increasing traffic, but didn’t provide solutions for addressing these unintended consequences.

What specific mechanisms and frameworks are needed to ensure AI literacy education reaches all populations, especially in developing countries?

Speaker

Xin Yi Ding

Explanation

Ms. Ding emphasized the need for AI literacy for everyone but didn’t elaborate on the practical implementation strategies or how to overcome barriers to access, particularly in underserved communities.

How can we quantify and balance the environmental costs of AI (energy consumption, water usage) against its sustainability benefits?

Speaker

Rony Medaglia

Explanation

Professor Medaglia presented concerning statistics about AI’s environmental impact (CO2 emissions, water usage) but didn’t address how to create frameworks for measuring net environmental impact when AI is used for sustainability purposes.

What are the most effective methods for detecting and preventing AI-generated misinformation and deepfakes at scale?

Speaker

Xin Yi Ding

Explanation

Ms. Ding demonstrated the ease of creating convincing deepfakes and highlighted the crisis of public trust, but didn’t discuss technical or policy solutions for detection and prevention of such content.

How can international cooperation frameworks be strengthened to ensure equitable AI development and governance across different political and economic systems?

Speaker

Yong Guo and Xuanyun You

Explanation

Both speakers emphasized the importance of international cooperation and China’s initiatives, but didn’t address the practical challenges of implementing global governance frameworks across diverse political systems and economic development levels.

What specific metrics and evaluation methods should be used to assess the effectiveness of AI capacity building initiatives in developing countries?

Speaker

Xuanyun You

Explanation

Ms. You mentioned China’s AI Capacity Building Action Plan and efforts to help the Global South, but didn’t specify how success would be measured or what indicators would demonstrate effective capacity building.

Summary

This discussion focused on technical community perspectives on WSIS Plus 20, examining the governance of the internet’s technical architecture and the role of multi-stakeholder models in maintaining a secure, stable, and open internet. The panel brought together experts from various internet governance organizations including ICANN, APNIC, Internet Society, and civil society representatives to discuss the complex technical layer underpinning the internet.

The panelists explained that the internet’s technical architecture consists of federated entities working together, including standards and protocols (managed through organizations like IETF), the domain name system (coordinated by ICANN), and internet number resources (managed by Regional Internet Registries like APNIC). Each component operates through open, bottom-up, consensus-based processes that allow diverse stakeholders to participate in governance decisions. The speakers emphasized that the multi-stakeholder model’s strength lies in bringing together engineers, companies, government representatives, and civil society to shape internet governance collaboratively.

Several challenges were identified, including rising geopolitical tensions driving digital sovereignty initiatives, cybersecurity threats, and regulatory fragmentation that could lead to internet fragmentation. The panelists noted particular concerns about the governance crisis at AFRINIC, highlighting vulnerabilities in the technical governance system. Regarding the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), there was debate about its fitness for purpose in addressing emerging digital governance issues beyond traditional internet infrastructure.

The discussion concluded with calls for maintaining the IGF’s multi-stakeholder approach while addressing concerns about focus, resource allocation, and the balance between technical internet governance and broader digital cooperation issues. The panelists emphasized the critical importance of preserving the internet’s global, open architecture amid increasing pressures for centralized control.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Technical Architecture and Governance of the Internet**: The panelists provided detailed explanations of different components of the internet’s technical layer, including standards and protocols (IETF), domain name system (DNS/ICANN), IP address allocation (RIRs like APNIC), and how these federated entities work together through multi-stakeholder governance models.

– **Multi-stakeholder Model Benefits and Challenges**: Extensive discussion on how the multi-stakeholder approach enables diverse actors (technical community, governments, civil society, private sector) to collaborate as peers, with examples like HTTPS protocol development and public interest technology groups in IETF, while acknowledging barriers like resource constraints and knowledge asymmetries.

– **Internet Fragmentation Risks and Threats**: Panelists highlighted growing concerns about technical and policy fragmentation due to geopolitical tensions, digital sovereignty assertions, cybersecurity threats, and regulatory decisions made without understanding technical implications, emphasizing the urgency of preserving the internet’s global, open architecture.

– **Role and Future of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF)**: Discussion centered on whether IGF remains fit for purpose amid evolving digital governance challenges, with debates about the distinction between “governance of the internet” (technical layer) versus “governance on the internet” (applications), and calls for better focus, streamlined processes, and sustainable funding.

– **WSIS+20 Review and Technical Community Perspectives**: The conversation addressed how the technical community should engage in the World Summit on the Information Society review process, emphasizing the importance of evidence-based, technically-informed policy decisions while maintaining the successful multi-stakeholder governance model.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to provide technical community perspectives on internet governance ahead of the WSIS+20 review, explaining the complex technical architecture underlying the internet, demonstrating how multi-stakeholder governance works in practice, and articulating the importance of preserving this model against emerging threats of fragmentation and centralized control.

## Overall Tone:

The tone was professional and collaborative throughout, with panelists building on each other’s points constructively. While generally optimistic about the multi-stakeholder model’s successes, there was an underlying sense of urgency and concern about emerging threats. The discussion became more pointed when addressing specific challenges like the AFRINIC governance crisis and calls for IGF reform, but remained respectful and solution-oriented. Panelists demonstrated mutual respect and shared commitment to preserving an open, secure, and globally interoperable internet.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Ajith Francis** – Session moderator/chair

– **Joyce Chen** – Senior Advisor for Strategic Engagement at APNIC (Asia-Pacific Network Information Centre)

– **Israel Rosas** – Director for Partnerships and Internet Development at Internet Society

– **Chris Chapman** – Member of the ICANN board (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers), Deputy Chair, former chairman of Australian Communications and Media Authority

– **Ellie McDonald** – Policy and Advocacy Lead at Global Partners Digital (civil society and human rights organisation)

– **Paulos Nyirenda** – Manager of the country code top-level domain for Malawi (.mw), joining online

– **Frodo Sorensen** – Senior Advisor for Internet Governance at the Norwegian Communications Authority

– **Alicia Sharif** – Policy and Public Affairs Lead at Nominet, session co-moderator

– **Audience** – Various audience members asking questions

**Additional speakers:**

– **Mia Kuehlewin** – From the Internet Architecture Board in the IETF (Internet Engineering Task Force)

– **Nicholas** – Audience member who submitted an online question about internet security extensions

# Technical Community Perspectives on WSIS Plus 20: Internet Governance and Multi-Stakeholder Models

## Introduction and Context

This panel discussion, moderated by Ajith Francis and co-moderated by Alicia Sharif from Nominet, brought together experts from key internet governance organizations to examine technical community perspectives on the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) Plus 20 review process. Francis opened by clarifying the session’s focus on “governance of the internet” – the technical infrastructure and coordination mechanisms – rather than “governance on the internet” such as content regulation.

The panel featured representatives from ICANN, APNIC, the Internet Society, civil society groups, and government perspectives, discussing how multi-stakeholder governance models maintain internet security, stability, and openness amid emerging challenges.

## The Internet’s Technical Architecture and Governance

### Standards Development and Open Participation

Israel Rosas from the Internet Society explained how internet standards are developed through open, inclusive processes. He emphasized that “we can all be the IETF in some way,” describing how any organization with technical expertise can participate in Internet Engineering Task Force discussions through meetings, online participation, and mailing lists. This demonstrates how “the open model of voluntary adoption of standardisation can work” through diverse stakeholder contributions rather than mandated compliance.

### Domain Name System Coordination

Paulos Nyirenda, managing Malawi’s country code top-level domain (.mw), explained the hierarchical structure of the Domain Name System that converts human-readable addresses to IP addresses. Chris Chapman, an ICANN board member, elaborated on ICANN’s role in coordinating global internet unique identifiers through multi-stakeholder oversight, describing it as “an impressive approach” that, while imperfect, serves as the foundation for internet coordination.

### Regional Internet Registry Challenges

Joyce Chen from APNIC detailed how Regional Internet Registries manage IP address allocation through community-based, consensus-driven policy development. However, she highlighted current challenges, particularly the governance crisis at AFRINIC. Nyirenda confirmed the severity of this situation, noting that AFRINIC had “annulled board elections just a few hours ago,” demonstrating how governance failures in technical infrastructure can directly affect internet stability for entire regions.

## Multi-Stakeholder Governance Models

### Collaborative Decision-Making

The panelists demonstrated support for multi-stakeholder governance across different sectors. Ellie McDonald from Global Partners Digital highlighted how “multi-stakeholder spaces allow engineers, companies, governments and civil society to collaborate,” citing examples like IETF public interest technology groups that enable “human rights by design” in technical standards.

Frodo Sorensen from the Norwegian Communications Authority provided governmental endorsement, stating that “Norway strongly supports multi-stakeholder approach and ICANN/IETF as core institutions,” emphasizing that technical community involvement prevents destabilization.

### The Role of Productive Disagreement

Rosas offered a unique perspective on disagreement in multi-stakeholder processes, arguing that “disagreement is good is positive because different stakeholders may have different views different interests, but if we pursue the same objective… it’s through the discussion that we can reach consensus.” He described multi-stakeholder models as providing “spaces of influence and translation where different stakeholders can reach consensus through open disagreement and discussion.”

## Current Threats and Challenges

### Geopolitical Pressures

Chen identified 2025 as a “critical inflection point with geopolitical tensions driving digital sovereignty proposals that risk fragmenting internet into isolated silos.” McDonald expressed concern that the “WSIS+20 process poses risks of more state-centric approaches that could exclude multi-stakeholder accountability.”

### Regulatory Fragmentation

Chapman noted the challenge of “rising regulatory pressures from multiple digital media regulators worldwide making decisions without understanding technical implications.” Sorensen reinforced this concern, arguing that “internet fragmentation risks emerge when stakeholders are excluded from governance discussions, particularly if technical community involvement is insufficient.”

### Technical Security Implementation

An online participant, Nicholas, raised questions about integrating security measures like RPKI and DNSSEC into policy processes. Rosas argued for maintaining separation between high-level policy discussions and technical implementation, suggesting that “WSIS+20 is a high-level process where for instance we can agree that we want a more secure more trusted internet. How? Well that’s for the community to work in specific spaces.”

## Internet Governance Forum: Perspectives on Reform

### Defending Current Flexibility

Rosas provided a strong defense of the IGF’s current approach, arguing it “remains fit for purpose with valid working definition covering emerging technologies, with community addressing AI and other issues before formal UN processes.” He emphasized the forum’s adaptability as a strength.

Sorensen highlighted the IGF’s significance as a “successful prototype for multi-stakeholder approach in UN system, building trust and legitimacy by involving affected parties in decision-making.”

### Calls for Greater Focus

Chen presented a more critical assessment, noting that while “technical community contributes 30% of funding,” there is “decreasing space for technical topics in discussions.” She argued that the IGF “needs greater focus and streamlining,” explaining: “We are very good at picking up things, but we don’t know how to put them down, you know, to make space for other pressing issues. We’re trying to juggle everything and we’re trying to please everyone. And to me, this is a disservice to everybody because it’s impossible to dive deeply into particular topics.”

Chapman offered a middle position, acknowledging that the “IGF provides unique global space where stakeholders meet as peers, deserving continued support” while recognizing the need for improvements.

## Technical Community Contributions and Representation

Chen’s revelation that technical organizations comprise 30% of the IGF trust fund while “seeing fewer technical topics being discussed at the IGF” highlighted a concerning disconnect between financial contribution and topical representation. This substantial investment demonstrates the technical community’s commitment to multi-stakeholder governance, but raises questions about the forum’s direction and sustainability if major funders feel inadequately represented.

## Regional Perspectives: The AFRINIC Crisis

The governance crisis at AFRINIC, Africa’s internet registry, served as a real-world example of the consequences when technical governance systems face institutional challenges. Nyirenda’s report of annulled board elections demonstrated how governance failures directly affect internet infrastructure stability for entire regions.

Chen acknowledged the severity while highlighting community-driven responses, noting the “urgent need for community-driven solutions and review of fundamental governance documents.” This illustrates how the multi-stakeholder model can adapt to address serious challenges through community action rather than external intervention.

## WSIS+20 and Coordination Challenges

Panelists expressed concern about potential changes to internet governance frameworks through WSIS+20. The challenge lies in engaging constructively while protecting multi-stakeholder principles that have enabled internet development.

Sorensen raised important questions about coordination between WSIS+20 and other initiatives like the Global Digital Compact, asking “how can we better connect WSIS and the Global Digital Compact to avoid duplicated and fragmented efforts?” This reflects concerns about proliferating digital governance processes creating parallel, potentially conflicting frameworks.

## Key Technical Community Perspectives

The discussion revealed several core technical community positions:

– **Separation of Policy and Implementation**: High-level processes can establish principles, but technical implementation should remain within community-driven processes with appropriate expertise

– **Voluntary Adoption**: Internet standards work through voluntary adoption rather than mandated compliance

– **Community-Driven Solutions**: Technical governance challenges are best addressed through community processes rather than external intervention

– **Multi-Stakeholder Participation**: Technical expertise must remain central to internet governance, but within inclusive processes involving all stakeholders

## Conclusion

The discussion highlighted both the strengths of current internet governance arrangements and emerging pressures that could affect their future effectiveness. While panelists supported multi-stakeholder governance principles, they identified significant challenges including geopolitical tensions, regulatory fragmentation, and institutional governance crises.

The disagreement about IGF reform within the technical community itself suggests recognition that even successful governance models require continuous evolution. The path forward appears to require maintaining core multi-stakeholder principles while addressing legitimate concerns about effectiveness, focus, and representation.

The urgency expressed about 2025 as a critical inflection point indicates these challenges require immediate attention. The internet governance community faces the task of demonstrating that multi-stakeholder approaches can adapt and improve while preserving the fundamental characteristics that have enabled the internet’s global success.

Ajith Francis: Good afternoon and thank you for joining us. Hello and good afternoon, everybody. Welcome to yet another session on WSIS Plus 20. However, we hopefully today are going to talk about the technical community perspectives on WSIS Plus 20, but also what are the challenges with regards to governance when it comes to the technical architecture. The purpose of today’s session really is to provide a framing and a brief understanding on the technical layer of the Internet and the technical architecture, its governance, but also the role of the multi-stakeholder model. We also want to spend a little bit of time to address the role of the IGF and maybe try to articulate a positive vision for the IGF as well. We often take the technical underpinning of the Internet for granted, and that’s with good reason, because the end user doesn’t necessarily need to know the actually ins and outs of how the Internet works as they navigate the Internet. But when it comes to the actual questions around policy and governance, that understanding of what is the actual technical layer and the different components of it are extremely critical. The technical architecture underpinning the Internet is definitely not a monolith, but it’s actually a set of federated entities, operators, and actors that work together to actually keep the Internet running and accessible for all of us. So to help me understand some of these perspectives on what is the technical layer but also what are the governance parameters as well as challenges facing the technical layer at the moment, I’m joined by a stellar panel with diverse sets of expertise and perspectives. So I’m joined today and I’m gonna go alphabetically, I’m joined by Chris Chapman who’s a member of the ICANN board which is the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers. I have Joyce Chen who is the Senior Advisor for Strategic Engagement at APNIC. Also joining us is Ellie McDonald, Policy and Advocacy Lead at Global Partners Digital. We also have our colleague Paulos Nyirenda joining us online. He is the manager of the country code top-level domain for the country of Malawi.mw. We’re also joined by Israel Rosas who is the Director for Partnerships and Internet Development at Internet Society. And finally and but not definitely the least, we also have Frodo Sorensen who is the Internet Advisor, the Senior Advisor for Internet Governance at the Norwegian Communications Authority. Alicia Sharif from Nominet who’s also the Policy and Public Affairs Lead is helping us also moderate the session and has also helped put this session together. So thank you all very much for joining today’s session. I really appreciate you taking the time out to to speak to us today. We want to keep this session fairly interactive and a bit of a discussion format. We will have two sort of blocks for Q&A for short brief Q&A in between the session. So we there are for those of you joining us in person we have two mics on the on either side of the of the room so please feel free to use that. If you’re joining us virtually please feel free to put your comments in the chat box or in the Q&A part and online moderator Alicia will help us sort of navigate that. So I’ve provided a very generic and a very broad overview of what is the technical layer But I really want to turn to my fellow panelists today to really sort of dig into some of the nuances of the technical layer And I’m gonna start with with Israel if you wouldn’t mind giving us your perspective Particularly on the standards and the protocol side that make up the the internet Particularly given your role at the Internet Society and your interactions with the IETF and Internet Architecture Board So if you could frame out what is sort of the role of the the standards and the protocols community

Israel Rosas: Really Relevant conversation nowadays that we’ve seen many Organizations from the technical community of the internet participating here And Just for and thank you for framing the question that way because the Internet Society is a nonprofit organization founded in 1992 to support the community of People working on the internet Later at that time then we’ve seen different parts of the of the internet being developed in different ways and One particular part is the Internet Engineering Task Force the Internet Architecture Board I cannot say that I speak on behalf of them We’ve seen some of the members of the IAB are here at the IETF. So if you would like to get in touch with them They are around the halls Here’s I can see Warren here and there are some other members the chair of the IETF is also here But you know what I would like to highlight from from that part of the technical community It’s not necessarily the topics but how the that part of the community addresses the multi-stakeholder open conversations because something that has been catching my attention these days that we’ll be having conversations on the wisp plus any review and like this kind of high-level discussions is that in some occasions some actors perceive that the IETF or that part of the community should solve something when a problem is identified for instance but seeing it as a separate entity as if you could outsource the work to that entity for that entity to solve it when in reality what we’re saying is that we can all be the IETF in some way for instance when discussing this with government officials we have at the Internet Society we have a policy makers program where we invite government officials policy makers to attend the IETF meetings to see how the standards are developed even these ways of measuring consensus with the humming in the rooms that is something that really surprises some of the policy makers in our programs like but and how do you vote now let me explain it’s like rough consensus this kind of discussions it’s important for them to to understand that any organization any team having technical people within their organizations they can join these conversations at the IETF and there are mechanisms to attend the meetings in person online to participate mailing list and that’s why we have that program at the Internet Society for the policy makers for them to understand that they can be part of the solution instead of asking the body to to solve particular issues so I would like to to lead it at this point to keep the conversation going but I think that’s the most important part like these organizations are showing how the open model of voluntary adoption of standardization can work and then that how can be implemented in some other spaces in some other ways

Ajith Francis: Thanks Israel. So maybe I’m going to turn now to our online panelist, Paulos. If Paulos, would you mind giving us your perspective on sort of the name side of the Internet technical layer?

Paulos Nyirenda: Thank you, Jay. Can you hear me? Yeah, we can hear you. Thank you. So, yes, the technical layer of the Internet is responsible for things like routing data packets across the network. And it’s used by people and people normally use easy to remember addresses for accessing services on the Internet, like vast amounts of information. They do online banking, they do shopping, they enjoy various forms of Internet. They do learning. And all these are done using human interfaces with easy to remember addresses for the resources. However, as we all know, computers use numbers for sending the data across the Internet. And so there is need for an intermediary. The domain name system converts the man readable and easy to remember addresses to IP addresses, which the computers use for sending the traffic across the Internet. I think my task here is to look at the naming side and the DNS in particular. And the DNS has a hierarchy. So there is the root and the top. are managed by ICANN and with several operators. They generate top level domains like .com, country called top level domains like .mw for Malawi or .no for Norway. And these are supported by DNS servers, are operated by many registry and internet service providers across the world. So as we see the technical layer of the internet involves many players and it attracts a multi-stakeholder approach to its governance. But as governments manage people who use the internet and these are also managed by civil society, we see that multi-stakeholder coordination is really necessary for internet governance and the IGF has assisted to play a role in presenting a platform for this. So internet names, organization or management or governance, we can think of the ICANN as being at the top with its individual supporting organizations, the GNSO, the CCNSO, GNSO for generic top level domains, CCNSO for country codes and many countries have taken a particularly keen interest on their country code top level domains which featured highly in WSIS and features highly in IGF. discussions. We have governments taking part under GAC, the Government Advisory Committee, and end-users under ALAC as a constituency of ICANN. And there are many other ICANN constituencies that support or present platforms for many stakeholders to come in. Around the origins of the Internet, the US government used to play a critical role in approving things like registrations for domain names, updates at the top level, and operations at the root level. That was the so-called US oversight role. That role ended in 2016 with transition of IANA functions under ICANN to the Internet community in the current multistakeholder model of Internet governance. So right now, oversight at ICANN is now carried out using supporting organizations and advisory committees that I have mentioned earlier. So the IANA function that plays a critical role at the top level is carried out on a day-to-day basis by ICANN and the BTI. Maybe I should stop there for now. Thank you very much.

Ajith Francis: Thanks, Paulos. Maybe, Joyce, if you would mind sharing with us the perspective of the numbers community?

Joyce Chen: Thanks very much, Ajith, and good afternoon to all of you, and good afternoon, good morning, good evening to those of you who are online and joining us from all over the world. Thanks for having me. So the way that I would like to approach this question is to sort of describe the work of APNIC and as well our policy development process, which I think Many people in the room are quite familiar with how ICANN policy development works, but may not be as familiar as how the regional internet registries approach our policy development. So just very quickly, for those of you who might be new to this world, and may not be as familiar with the terms, those of you who already are very familiar, this is the part where you can switch off. APINIC is the regional internet registry, I’ve mentioned that before, which is also the term RIR, for the Asia-Pacific. It is a not-for-profit, all the internet organizations are not-for-profit. We are also membership-based, and we play a vital role in the technical coordination of the internet. We are one of five regional internet registries around the world that does the work of managing and allocating internet number resources, such as IP addresses and autonomous system numbers, or ASNs. And internet number resources are fundamental resources, because they allow devices and networks to communicate across the global internet. So let’s talk a bit about APINIC’s policy development. What it refers to are how the rules and guidelines are created for managing internet number resources within the Asia-Pacific region. So what that means is we have community-based policy development for the region, by the region. And this is the same practice across the various regions in the world. These policies determine who gets IP resources, how they are used, and how they are distributed fairly and efficiently. Our policy development process is open to all, bottom-up, consensus-based, transparent, and documented. And what it means is anyone, not just APINIC members, can propose a policy change or participate in discussions. By upholding these values in our policy development, we ensure fairness in IP address distribution. Distribution, because it is based on community’s needs across diverse stakeholders in the region. Our aim is to protect the integrity of the global internet by maintaining consistent technical standards.

Ajith Francis: Thanks, Joyce. I think to round this out, maybe Chris, if you could give us your perspective on the role of ICANN, which also Paulos has alluded to as well. So over to you, Chris.

Chris Chapman: Well, Ajit, firstly, thank you for having me on the panel. I’ve never been described as part of a stellar panel before, so there’s always a first. And talking about first, this is my first IGF. I’ve been on the ICANN board for nearly three years. Currently the deputy chair. I note that in the audience in the front row is our current chair, Tripti Singha, and Becky Burr. So I feel like I’m here having an annual performance review. But in all seriousness, I joined the board having a longstanding, sorry, I’ll just go back one step. I’m a lapsed lawyer by training. And it’s a bit like being a lapsed Catholic, which I also am. But throughout my career, whether it was ultimately running the Seven Network Broadcasting in Australia or building the Olympic Stadium in Sydney, or running the Optus Broadband Telecommunications Initiative, or being for 10 years the inaugural chairman of the Australian Communications and Media Authority, which was probably the first genuinely converged regulator broadcasting telecommunication spectrum. and so-called online services. Or indeed from 2016 to 2023, being the president of the International Institute of Communications, which is 56 years old. Based in London, it’s a hosting platform stroke think tank for media and communications. Started in public broadcasting, broadcasting telecommunications, and now has, like all things, evolved into the digital ecosystem. I have always thoroughly enjoyed working within the technical community, although I would not in any way, shape, or form say I’m technically savvy. But I emphasize all that because on each and every occasion, the technical side of those businesses is what has ensured long-term prosperity, long-term stability. It has been the sanity check, the reality check. They are the foundational pillar of any system that you want to have that is effective, efficient, and ultimately enduring. So I joined ICANN with new curiosity about what that technical community meant in the internet space and the unique identifiers. I joined it with an absolute fascination for the multi-stakeholder model, disillusioned as I am about the multilateral institutions and the great challenges facing society globally. And I have become its greatest advocate. Late adopters are often the most passionate. So what I came to realize over the last several years ICANN is not the be-all and end-all. It is merely the senior player within the unique identifier space, the domain name system. that is the ultimate coordinator, not only within a very engaged, broadly global-based community, but also with a number of collaboration partners in the iPlayers. So the model is much more deep, nuanced, respectful, intelligent, broadly-based, bottom-up than I could have ever contemplated. And I’ve enjoyed every moment of being within the community and being educated by the community and learning from the community. So having said that, the short point, the short question you asked me, and I’ve been listening to Paulos and Joyce, and if I could synthesize those two together, I’d have the perfect description of what ICANN does. But ICANN’s mission is essentially to coordinate the global internet system of unique identifiers, ensuring a stable, secure and unified online experience. In practice, this means ensuring that there is one internet, one unique hierarchical namespace based on a unique route. If you were to go a little deeper, you’d break it down into three buckets. There’s the technical aspects, there’s the ensuring the stable and secure operation of the internet’s unique identifier systems by coordinating the allocation and assignment of names in the root zone of the domain name system. There’s facilitating the coordination, operation and evolution of the DNS root name server system. There’s coordinating the allocation and assignment at the topmost level of internet protocol numbers and autonomous system numbers. And then you’ve got the whole policy side of the multi-stakeholder model, which is not perfect, but it’s a very impressive model. And it could be more efficient, it could be more.

Ajith Francis: Thanks, Chris. I think these interventions sort of highlight how complex the technical layer is and how there are different parts of it. And given that there are so many different entities that are involved in the provisioning of the internet, I think the question of collective governance and coordination becomes extremely important. Coordination both at the level of operational matters but also at the level of policy. So I’m going to turn now to Ellie and Frodo to sort of giving us your thoughts on how the internet governance ecosystem has benefited a secure, stable and open internet rooted in human rights. But also what does the multi-stakeholder model mean to you? Maybe we can start with Ellie and then go to Frodo.

Ellie McDonald: Thank you, Ajif. I’m also not a member of the technical community, so perhaps I can just briefly introduce why I think I’m here, who I am. So I work for Global Partners Digital, we’re a civil society and human rights organisation and we work to ensure that the frameworks, norms and standards that underpin digital technologies are rights respecting and also developed in an inclusive way. So as part of this work we’ve engaged in multi-stakeholder venues like the IETF, earlier mentioned, multilateral ones like the ITU and of course the IGF, this multi-stakeholder discursive beautiful but flawed forum that we find ourselves in now. So maybe I can build a bit on what the other panellists have said and particularly ISRA. I think what’s particularly special about this ecosystem is that it does provide these unique spaces where you could have on one hand an engineer, a company, government representative and a human rights defender to come together and to shape all of the various things that we’ve just discussed. I think there are clear examples of how this can work in practice. I’m sure that the panelists can furnish us with a lot. I’ll just give a couple. One that comes to mind is the public interest technology group in the IETF. I think in being established, this offered a really safe space to be able to exchange information for different layers of knowledge to come together. So the technical, the advocacy, the normative, the human impacts to be brought together. It permitted, has permitted, public interest actors to engage at the earliest stage of development and that’s really critical to ensure human rights respect by design. Another example that comes to mind is the evolution and the establishment of the HTTPS protocol. I think this is a really beautiful example of how that can work in practice. Both identifying problems, issues that needed to be addressed, both technical ones but also the resulting issues in terms of surveillance. Having the appropriate technical solution and then being able to test it with end users and other experts who could say whether it would be fit for purpose. I would like to add that I don’t think, I don’t think anyone here would say that that means that these spaces are functioning perfectly. They’re resource intensive and that makes it particularly hard for under-resourced communities to engage. There are naturally asymmetries of knowledge that make it difficult too. Sometimes issues of access and then of course the challenge of translating between different lexicons. The IGF, which I think we’ll come to shortly, I think is a really special place where that translation work happens. and all of that to say despite there being these kind of issues of reforms that need to be made and doesn’t mean that we should abandon these spaces they’re tremendously useful and helpful and yeah I’m back and pause there.

Ajith Francis: Thanks Ellie. Frodo?

Frodo Sorensen: Thank you Hadjet and thanks for a very interesting exchange of views so far. Norway is a strong supporter of the multi-stakeholder approach for internet governance and digital cooperation and furthermore Norway is also a strong supporter of the ICANN as the core institution for technical internet governance and the IETF as a standardization body for internet technology. It is paramount that the internet remains open free resilient and interoperable. This should be the core of the discussion of the ongoing discussion about the multi-stakeholder model and the future of the IETF. How can the model and the forum be designed to support an open and secure internet? It is also worth noting that the broader topic of digital cooperation is closely linked to the open and secure internet since this underpins the running of applications and sharing of information which facilitates human interaction, public discourse and economic activity. So why is the governance at the technical layer so special? Governance of the internet infrastructure is based on the running of technical equipment that requires insight of the technical community to ensure that the internet works stable, robust and interoperable. The internet may become fragmented if some of the stakeholders are excluded from the internet governance discussion and in case the technical community is not sufficiently involved the administration of internet resources and thereby the internet itself may destabilize. and furthermore the value of the internet may become weakened since it restricts the usability of this global network. In particular the underlying technical layer of the internet is fundamental for the functioning of the internet. This ensures interoperability of the core functions of the internet and furthermore without an open and secure and interoperable internet infrastructure the applications built on top of it may become restricted. Ultimately without an open and secure internet it may threaten human rights, in particular freedom of speech and freedom of association and furthermore the value of the internet to support democratic processes globally may become undermined if the internet communication is restricted. In summary the expertise from the technical community is instrumental to the running of the internet. Involvement of the technical community for the global internet governance is important for an informed discussion based on technical realities. This is a prerequisite for maintaining an open and secure internet.

Ajith Francis: Thanks Frodo. If anybody wants to pose questions please feel free to use the mic and I’ll come to you very shortly. I think what Frodo points to is very interesting because there is this often this risk that’s often sort of thrown out which is this question of internet fragmentation and fragmentation at two layers both at the technical fragmentation but also policy and regulatory fragmentation. So with that sort of broad sort of overarching perspective I open the floor to any of you to sort of share your perspectives on why are we having this conversation today, what is the role that the technical community and civil society and government stakeholders sort of play in this conversation. So, I go to the questions right after this. Joyce, do you want to go first?

Joyce Chen: Sure. So, the question was, why are we having this conversation now? I think it speaks to the urgency of protecting the Internet’s global open nature amid rising geopolitical, technical and regulatory pressures. 2025, this year, is an inflection point. We are reviewing WSIS in an environment of growing geopolitical tensions, driving nations to assert digital sovereignty, leading to proposals for national firewalls, data localization laws, even alternative or alternate DNS systems, developments that risk breaking the Internet into isolated silos. The rise of cybersecurity threats, misinformation, abuse of platforms, they’re all prompting calls for more centralized control. There are increasingly hostile actors that weaponize the use of the Internet to disrupt lives and push political agendas. We have yet to reach global agreement on governance frameworks for new and emerging technologies like AI. All this to say that there are real risks, that if we don’t actively preserve the Internet’s open and global architecture, we risk losing it. Internet organizations and coalitions such as the TCCM, the Technical Community Coalition on Multi-Stakeholderism, I love that I said that all in one go, are ensuring that governance decisions are informed by technical realities. The technical community brings evidence-based operational expertise that is essential to preserving a global, secure and resilient Internet.

Ajith Francis: Israel?

Israel Rosas: Yeah, if I may, the thing is that I kept thinking in different things that my fellow colleagues have shared, and I keep stealing ideas from Joyce, from Ellie McDonald all the time, I have to say, because in a previous meeting Joyce mentioned that the IEF is a space of influence where stakeholders influence each other. And then Ellie mentioned that this is a translation space and I think that both are true and complementary because For instance what we are doing with the policy makers program for the ITF It is not that we are asking the policy makers to become Technologists and to participate in in the deep roots of the technical operation. We want them to understand the first of all how the Policies are developed how the group works how the the ecosystem works in that part But at the other at the same time we want the same From the technologists to understand that the policy makers have valid concerns and at the end of the day Perhaps to your question. We are having this kind of conversations and we are facing threats of fragmentation Because I don’t know why I’ve seen a trend to avoid disagreement and in fact disagreement is good is positive because Different stakeholders may have different views different interests, but if we pursue the same objective And if we start talking breaching our Disagreements is through that consensus discussion It’s through the discussion that we can reach consensus and that discussion of course is going to be longer It’s going to take longer. It’s going to be probably more complex It’s going to need more translation more influence like in these spaces in other meetings in other spaces But at the end of the day the result is going to be more resilient without fewer non-intended consequences and Securing an interoperable Internet a single Internet a global Internet So I think that that’s why it’s important like to take reference of different ways of implementation of the multi-stakeholder model And and I think this kind of opportunities are really good for that. Thanks.

Ajith Francis: Thanks. I’m gonna go to Ellie Do you wanna jump in and then Chris and then we go to the question on the floor?

Ellie McDonald: excellent Sorry, I keep forgetting to turn myself down and Yeah, maybe I can speak a bit to the governance aspect of the question. I think and This panel is about WSIS I think one of the reasons we’re having this discussion is because that is a space where this will be stress tested and in fact come under quite severe threat. I think probably we all see the risk of how this could play out in the months ahead and not only with respect to this process but I think Joyce also mentioned discussions about the governance of emerging technologies and I think in discussions of the AI mechanisms, that kind of final eleventh hour negotiations, we see risks of more state-centric process to the appointment of experts, exclusion of military applications from the scope of the assessments that they’ll do, lack of genuine multi-stakeholder accountability. I know many of you in the room are working to mitigate those risks but I suppose I really loved Isra’s positive take but to give more of the risk take I think in the midst of everything else that’s happening, the conflict, the challenges at the moment, it’s really important that we also keep close attention to these processes and that we don’t lose anything in the course of the next year and that we’re not next year sitting without this forum that we’ve already kind of praised in so many ways.

Ajith Francis: Thanks. Chris?

Chris Chapman: Just to add to that and synthesising some of these thoughts, I often discuss the prospect that with 200 countries say in the world, sovereign powers, at last count I got to 420 digital media regulators around the world. That was the last count, that was about three years ago when I laboriously went through it. Now It’s, we’re on, we have seen whack-a-mole instances over the last five to ten years where legislatures, regulators just make arbitrary decisions completely ignorant of the implications of what they do with the unintended consequences when they enter into decision making and have unfortunate impact on the network and the operations layer within which we operate. And I think this is just going to, my apprehension about that will increase. So whereas we think we’re travelling okay, I’m quite positive about the outcome over the next few months. I feel a very good vibe right throughout the IGF from what I’m hearing and seeing. But collectively, our work is just starting and we’re going to have to double down. We’re going to have to invest, reinvest in mutual trust through our collaborations because we ain’t seen nothing yet.

Ajith Francis: Thanks. I’m going to take the question from the floor and then I come to you, Paulos. Please go ahead and make your question.

Audience: Hello, this is Mia Kuehlewin from the Internet Architecture Board in the IETF. And I don’t have a question, I want to just comment, I want to emphasise how important it is for us to get this broad input from all kinds of people because it actually makes our standards and makes the internet better. It makes it possible to take all requirements into the development process as much as we can so we don’t get surprised later on. But it’s also very essential for getting the protocols deployed because we are not like a government that can enforce anything. It’s like voluntary employment. And only if you consider everything, people will actually use it at the end and it will be a success. So this is very essential for us. And I also want to underline the openness of these fora because, as was said, there are some barriers, there are different languages, both of these spaces.

Ajith Francis: Thank you very much for taking the floor and I’m sorry to have kept you waiting. Paulos?

Paulos Nyirenda: Thank you, moderator. For us in Africa, maybe I should talk a little bit about how important it is now to be talking about governance of the technical layer. As you know, our registry in Africa for IP addresses, AFRINIC, is having tremendous governance-related problems at the moment that have resulted in, for example, annulling board elections just a few hours ago. So management and governance of the technical layer is particularly pertinent to our region as our internet registry, similar to APNIC for Asia, is going through these problems. We would appreciate raising the issues about multi-stakeholder, bottom-up mode of governance, because this is causing us a significant amount of trouble at the moment, at least technical layer. Thank you.

Ajith Francis: Thanks, Paulos. That’s a fair perspective. Yeah, go ahead, Joyce.

Joyce Chen: Thanks. This is Joyce. And thanks very much, Paulos, for bringing that up. It is a very critical issue and It really requires urgent attention from the internet community, not just the internet technical community, the community at large. And what I would like to applaud is that because this crisis has come to our doorstep, we have collectively decided that there needs to be a lot of renewal of the processes and policies that we have taken for granted since the beginning. And so if you look at the evolution of the internet, and especially at the technical layer, it’s always been on the best effort basis. It’s always been very voluntary basis. We’re all just trying our best to keep the lights on, essentially. A lot of the work took many years to professionalize, and it has taken a long time for the community to sort of refine the way that we do things, refine the way that we do governance. And so I might point you to this process that’s going on now, which is the review of the RIR governance document. This is a global effort. It is being run by the ICANN ASO, the Address Supporting Organization. And it really looks at the process of establishing and de-recognizing RIRs. So this is a fundamental document of RIR governance, and I highly encourage you to look into this. That’s all. I just wanted to add on to these remarks because I think it’s important that, yes, we have a problem. We are facing a crisis, but the community is coming together to find solutions for it before solutions are found for us.

Ajith Francis: Thanks, Joyce. So I’m very conscious of the time because we’re 15 minutes left, and I want to switch gears to talk about the IGF, which is the venue that we’re at. And the IGF, but also the multi-stakeholder model, has worked really, really well for the internet governance ecosystem, but also particularly for the technical layer. There’s an interesting question that’s emerging, which is, you know, is the IGF fit for purpose with regards to a lot of the new emerging digital governance issues that are sort of emerging at the moment? And this is in the context of a new sort of framing that’s emerging that’s being increasingly used between the governance of the internet, which is the actual standards, protocols, the namings and number system, but also governance on the internet, which is at the governance of the application layer. So I’d be very curious to get, Frodo, particularly your perspective on how you see the role of the IGF in this sort of emerging new context. Thank you.

Frodo Sorensen: The IGF has been a successful prototype for the implementation of the multistakeholder approach in the UN system. And one could build on this to seek to strengthen the multistakeholderism in other parts of the UN system, the CSTD, for example, by broadening representation of different stakeholder groups. The multistakeholder model helps to build trust between those who otherwise would not have a common space for discussion. It strengthens the legitimacy and the relevance of the governance process by allowing those affected by the decisions to be involved in shaping them. The complexity of the internet is constantly increasing, and this leads to a continuous need for the insight from the technical community, which can provide a supplement to the government’s societal perspective. Some have criticized the IGF for not having decision-making powers, but this is a part of the careful design. IGF is a global forum for building capacity, identifying, and discussing internet-related issues. However, there is a need to make IGF outcomes more accessible and useful for policymaking. In addition to the core issues of internet governance, which are closely related to the internet infrastructure, another aspect of the WSIS processes and the IDF has been in focus, often referred to as the Digital Cooperation, originally referred to in the Tunis Agenda as Enhanced Cooperation. WSIS and IDF have constantly also covered Digital Cooperation. The agendas of IDF meetings and WSIS forums have included various relevant topics in the field of Internet ecosystem and digital services. This implies that the global digital compact in practice largely is a duplication of this activity in the WSIS framework. Digital Cooperation within WSIS-IDF has covered various areas related to the use of the Internet as opposed to the underlying infrastructure. Examples of such areas are cyber security, Internet openness, data governance, platform economy, regulation, as well as artificial intelligence. There is a need to better connect WSIS and the GDC. Otherwise, we risk duplicated and fragmented efforts, which is unnecessary, since both initiatives have similar goals. It should be possible to better coordinate the interplay between the two.

Ajith Francis: Thanks, Frodo. I’m really understanding this tension between governance, often governance, on, I think, there’s this question of how does the technical community perceive this tension, and also civil society. So I’d be curious to get Joyce and Isra and Ellie McDonald, your perspective on this topic. Do you want to? Isra, do you want to? Yeah, I can. And I’m still

Israel Rosas: stealing ideas from others, because something that I’ve been hearing from our community is several references to, yes, the IEF is for purpose, and it’s been for many years. The thing is that if we take a time machine, like, I don’t know, five years, seven years before this one, probably the conversation wouldn’t be around artificial intelligence, but blockchain. And I don’t know what would have happened if we would have renamed this as, I don’t know, like the Blocking Governance Forum or something like that. The thing is, we have a working definition of internet governance that works, that is still valid, that mentions emerging technologies, whatever emerging technologies are in 2015, 2018, 2015, 2030, I don’t know. So, as that working definition is valid, the IEF remains valid to tackle different issues. And one of the results of that or one of the signals of that is that we’ve been having conversations at the IEF about artificial intelligence and different technologies way before the Global Digital Compact existed, way before the high-level panel on digital cooperation was floated as an idea in the United Nations. So, the community, or at least at my perspective, is reacting to these topics without necessarily receiving the signal from the governments, from the UN, for instance. So, my sense is that that’s going to keep happening within the current configuration. And that’s why I was referring at the beginning about who is the IETF or who is APNIC, for instance. If there’s a decision that needs to be made, it is not that you need to reach out to a person in APNIC to make a decision, because it’s not unilateral, it’s based on the processes that are designed in the community. The same with the IETF, the same with ICANN, the same with the CCTLDs. It is not that a single person can decide on something. So, the community is also working on how to keep shaping and evolving the agenda of the meetings, the agenda of the international activity that we shouldn’t forget about, or even the NRI. So, the short answer, yes, I think it’s a purpose. And just building on what Frodo mentioned on the difficulty of tracking the results, if this is a space of influence and translation, ICANN and the International Society published a paper on the footprints of the IETF. trying to track those impacts at the local level just to have like more elements for the discussion.

Ajith Francis: Joyce, do you want to add to that?

Joyce Chen: Sure, so I struggled to come up with ideas, more ideas, from like so many days of, you know, WSIS panels and discussions and what else do I have to add to this conversation? Is there something new that I could say? And I think across the days we’ve already heard for about, you know, calls for sustainable funding of the IGF, more resources, you know, rebranding the IGF to the DGF, you know, etc. And the reality is we are asking the IGF to do many things without really thinking about whether the current IGF structure is able to enable all this to happen. I would like to hear more proposals around how we can streamline IGF processes and intersessional work and how we can help to prioritize the work of the IGF and to give it more focus. One of the strengths of the IGF is that it is incredibly flexible. Every year we are able to frame conversations around new and, you know, hot topics. This year, for example, it’s all about AI and the program itself reflects this that we are all discussing issues to do with AI, for example. But the issue that I want to point out is that we are very good at picking up things, but we don’t know how to put them down, you know, to make space for other pressing issues. We’re trying to juggle everything and we’re trying to please everyone. And to me, this is a disservice to everybody because it’s impossible to dive deeply into particular topics. And I’m saying this because the internet technical community are one of the top financial contributors to the IGF. I was sitting in the donors meeting, the IGF donors meeting yesterday, and I think it was mentioned that the internet technical organizations actually comprise 30% of the overall IGF trust fund. And that’s big. You know, we believe in the mission of the IGF. We’re doing everything we can to support the multi-stakeholder community. And its perseverance is critical for the ongoing legitimacy of the multi-stakeholder internet governance ecosystem. However, over the years, we are seeing fewer technical topics being discussed at the IGF. The space for the technical community, I feel, is growing smaller. And I understand that the technical topics are dry. It’s hard to make something dry seem interesting in a policy space. And we struggle with this. Even though these are topics that are core to the functioning of the internet. So, in summary, I think that the IGF could benefit from greater focus, you know, efforts to prioritize its work. I hope to see more concrete proposals on how it could streamline better against certain agreed-upon priorities. And whether or not the IGF moves toward being action-oriented or it remains non-prescriptive, it will still require some housekeeping to remove some of the bloat. I think it bears reminding that all things digital are made possible by the internet, whether we are the DGF or the IGF. We’re really all just talking about the internet and the use of the internet.

Ajith Francis: Thanks, Joyce. Ellie, and then I’m going to go to Chris. But if you could keep it very, very brief, because we’re running short of time and I know we have an online question.

Ellie McDonald: Okay, I’ll try my best. Yeah, I would definitely underline a lot of what the other panelists said. I think we did some research as Global Partners Digital, sorry to shamelessly plug, but we looked a bit at the breadth of stakeholder positions on the IGF. We wanted to do this because we thought it could be quite useful to see where the convergence lies and also where there might be similarly intended attempts to operationalize different changes. and Joyce. I’m going to start by saying that I think the IGF is a really good example of how it changes to its form and structure. I say this because I think there was really a remarkable level of convergence about certain elements. I think as others had said, the bottom-up nature of the IGF is really so critical because it allows various communities to come with different lexicons, different ideas and to bring ideas to the table. The most important thing is to be successful and I believe I should again because I should be brief to pick up on something Froda said, I think we should also be mindful of the danger of being too restrictive about this mode, this multistakeholder model, that it has huge benefits that we wish

Ajith Francis: to multi it in several sectors, both visually and 강 should have the last play before-

Chris Chapman: I would endorse Froda’s comments, and even though it’s , as I said at the beginning, I’m new to egf and therefore hesitant to be prescriptive, I share choice’s cry from the heart about what needs to be done, and I think it’s a good thing that the ICANN has continued to support it, and I think it’s a good thing that the ICANN has continued to support it, and I think it’s one hundred and one percent supportive of the renewal of the IGF adequate resourcing, proper mandates, it’s the only place globally where stakeholders can come together as peers, and it’s from our- and the ICANN will continue to support it as it has

Alicia Sharif: been for a long time, and I think it’s a good thing that the ICANN has continued to support it as it has been for a long time. he’s asking his question in light of Wizards Plus 20 and ongoing discussions on strengthening the resilience of the global internet and Nicholas wonders if we are witnessing the next global wave of internet hardening through security extensions like RPKI and DNSSEC so these are both things that use cryptography to try and prevent kind of root hijacking on one hand and also adding cryptographic signatures to DNS records on the other so quite technical so he’s saying that we’ve seen precedents such as a US federal enforcement of RPKI for routing security and increasing DNSSEC mandates but we cannot look at this in isolation the post-quantum era looms ahead requiring us to rethink cryptographic agility and resilience at the root and edge and so Nicholas’s question is how do we ensure that security extensions reinforce trust and interoperability in a truly open internet and what guard rails should we be building now ahead of the Wizards Plus 20 outcomes?

Ajith Francis: Thanks. Israel?

Israel Rosas: I have a quick reaction if I may. I think that we shouldn’t mix those topics because the Wizards Plus 20 is a high-level process where for instance we can agree that we want a more secure more trusted internet. How? Well that’s for the community to work in specific spaces because for instance the interesting thing is that here we could identify I don’t know we could say that RPKI is important and each of us are going to make different things to support the deployment of RPKI. Different things and all of them are going to be valid and complementary so in summary I would say that it’s important to keep having those conversations the important part is that I’ve seen that RPKI is a widely community-driven process and if some governments are recommending its adoption it’s important also to realize that governments are also operating networks that are part of the internet so again multi-stakeholder implies governments. It is not that governments aren’t other stakeholders so just it’s a good reminder of that.

Ajith Francis: Thank you very much, Israel. And I can see the red light blinking, so it’s we’re at time. I want to say thank you very, very much to all of my fellow panelists. This was really I enjoyed having this conversation, and I hope the audience took something away from it as well. So thank you very much and have a good rest of the day. Thank you.