Uncategorized

Summary

This panel discussion focused on “Bridging the Compute Divide” and exploring the need for a global alliance to ensure equitable access to AI computational resources. The conversation was moderated by Fabio Steibel from Brazil’s ITS Rio Institute, who proposed creating a “GAVI for AI” – modeled after the successful Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization that has facilitated vaccine access worldwide since 2000.

The panelists included Jason Slater from UNIDO, Elena Estavillo Flores from Centro AI para la Sociedad del Futuro, Ivy Lau-Schindewolf from OpenAI, and Alisson O’Beirne from the Canadian government. They identified several key barriers to equitable compute access, including the concentration of computational power in roughly 30 nations (primarily the US and China), infrastructure gaps creating “compute deserts,” skills shortages, and the compounding nature of digital divides that leave regions further behind over time.

The discussion revealed that the challenge extends beyond inequitable distribution to an overall supply-demand gap affecting even developed nations. Panelists emphasized that solutions require multi-stakeholder collaboration involving governments, private sector, academia, and civil society. They highlighted successful examples like UNIDO’s AI for Manufacturing alliance and OpenAI’s Stargate infrastructure project, which demonstrate how technical, financial, and political partners can work together effectively.

Key lessons from GAVI included the importance of inclusive governance models, corrective mechanisms for historical inequalities, and sustainable financing structures. The panelists stressed that addressing compute access must be coupled with investments in local talent, skills development, and ensuring AI tools are designed responsively for diverse communities. The discussion concluded with calls for multiple collaborative alliances tailored to different communities and contexts, emphasizing that collective action requires genuine listening, compromise, and openness to different perspectives and needs.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Global Compute Divide and Access Inequality**: The panel highlighted the stark disparity in computational power access between the Global North and South, with Brazil having only 1% of global data centers and 0.2% of computational power. This creates barriers for AI development and perpetuates existing digital divides.

– **Need for Multi-stakeholder Collaboration**: Drawing lessons from GAVI (Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization), panelists emphasized the necessity of bringing together governments, private sector, academia, and civil society to address compute access challenges through coordinated purchasing power and resource sharing.

– **Infrastructure vs. Benefits Access**: The discussion explored whether countries need local compute infrastructure or if remote access to AI benefits could suffice. Examples included partnerships between countries for supercomputing resources and making AI tools accessible through platforms like WhatsApp in low-connectivity areas.

– **Sustainable Local Capacity Building**: Panelists stressed the importance of investing in people, local talent, and startup ecosystems rather than just hardware, highlighting how Global South innovation often emerges from creative solutions with limited resources.

– **Governance and Equitable Distribution**: The conversation addressed how to ensure fair distribution of compute resources through inclusive governance models that consider not just technical efficiency but social fairness, involving local institutions in decision-making processes.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to explore the feasibility and framework for creating global alliances to address the computational power divide in AI development, specifically focusing on how to ensure equitable access for Global South nations. The panel sought to identify barriers, share lessons from successful global initiatives like GAVI, and propose collaborative solutions for bridging the compute gap.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a constructive and collaborative tone throughout, with participants building on each other’s ideas rather than debating opposing viewpoints. The tone was solution-oriented and pragmatic, moving from problem identification to concrete examples and actionable proposals. There was a sense of urgency about addressing inequities while remaining optimistic about the potential for international cooperation. The conversation became increasingly focused on practical implementation strategies as it progressed, with panelists sharing specific initiatives and calling for concrete collaborative action.

Speakers

– **Fabro Steibel** – Executive Director of ITS Real Institute for Technology and Society (civil society organization), Panel Moderator

– **Jason Slater** – Chief AI Digital Innovation Officer at UNIDO (United Nations Industrial Development Organization)

– **Elena Estavillo Flores** – Founder and leader of Centro AI para la Sociedad del Futuro (think tank), Former telecommunications regulator in Mexico, Economist

– **Ivy Lau-Schindewolf** – International policy and partnerships at OpenAI, Global affairs team member coordinating work in growth markets (Africa, Latin America, APEC) and multilateral engagements

– **Alisson O’Beirne** – Director of International Telecommunications and Internet Policy, Department of Innovation, Science and Economic Development, Government of Canada

Additional speakers:

None identified beyond the provided speakers names list.

# Bridging the Compute Divide: A Comprehensive Panel Discussion Report

## Executive Summary

This panel discussion, moderated by Fabro Steibel from Brazil’s ITS Rio Institute, explored the critical challenge of creating equitable access to artificial intelligence computational resources through global collaboration. The conversation centered on the concept of establishing a “GAVI for AI” – a global alliance modeled after the successful Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization.

The distinguished panel brought together perspectives from multilateral organizations, government, private sector, and civil society. Jason Slater, Chief AI Digital Innovation Officer at UNIDO, represented the industrial development perspective; Elena Estavillo Flores provided insights from her experience as both a former telecommunications regulator in Mexico and current think tank leader; Ivy Lau-Schindewolf offered the private sector perspective from OpenAI’s global affairs team; and Alisson O’Beirne contributed the Canadian government’s policy viewpoint on international telecommunications and internet governance.

The discussion revealed that the compute divide represents both a supply shortage affecting all nations and an access inequality that disproportionately impacts the Global South. Panelists identified multiple interconnected barriers while emphasizing that solutions require unprecedented multi-stakeholder collaboration involving governments, private companies, academic institutions, and civil society organizations.

## The Global Compute Divide: Scope and Scale

### Quantifying the Inequality

Fabro Steibel opened the discussion with stark statistics illustrating the magnitude of the global compute divide. According to “EAA numbers released this week,” Brazil possesses only 1% of the world’s data centers (representing half of all Latin America) and a mere 0.2% of worldwide computational power. This disparity demonstrates how even major economies in the Global South face significant barriers to AI development and deployment.

Jason Slater expanded on this theme, noting that nearly 3 billion people remain unconnected globally, with Africa showing only a 25% adoption rate for AI and digital tools. He identified the concentration of computational power in approximately 30 nations, primarily the United States and China, creating what he termed “compute deserts” – regions with minimal connectivity and substantial skills gaps.

### The Compounding Nature of Digital Divides

Elena Estavillo Flores provided crucial insight into how the compute divide creates self-reinforcing cycles of disadvantage. She explained that the barriers are “not only complex, but they’re also compounding, they’re self-perpetuating.” This creates a situation where regions already lacking computational resources fall further behind as global demand increases and investment flows to areas that already possess compute capacity.

Alisson O’Beirne reinforced this analysis, noting that “as folks are left behind and as there’s a lack in compute capacity, those that are already behind the game are going to be left further and further behind.” This temporal dimension suggests that without proactive intervention, market forces alone will continue to exacerbate existing disparities.

### Universal Supply Constraints

Ivy Lau-Schindewolf introduced a crucial reframing by highlighting that “the problem isn’t just inequitable access. The problem is everyone needs more.” She noted that ChatGPT reached 100 million users in one month and now has 500 million weekly active users, illustrating the explosive global demand for AI capabilities that exceeds current supply capacity.

This universal supply constraint means that solutions cannot rely solely on redistributing existing computational resources from developed to developing nations. Instead, addressing the compute divide requires both expanding overall global capacity and ensuring more equitable distribution of resources.

## Barriers to Equitable Access

### Infrastructure and Investment Challenges

Elena Estavillo Flores highlighted particular challenges facing Latin America, where “there’s not enough private investment” and “governments don’t have enough resources for the investments that are needed.” This creates a funding gap where neither private markets nor public resources alone can provide the massive capital investments required for modern AI infrastructure.

Geographic cost differences and market concentration create additional barriers. The concentration of computational resources in specific regions leads to cost advantages that become self-perpetuating, making it increasingly difficult for emerging economies to compete or develop local alternatives.

### Skills and Capacity Gaps

Beyond physical infrastructure, Jason Slater emphasized that compute deserts are characterized not only by lack of connectivity but also by “significant skills gaps.” These capacity constraints mean that even when computational resources become available, many regions lack the technical expertise necessary to utilize them effectively.

Ivy Lau-Schindewolf reinforced this point, noting that “cultivating vibrant startup ecosystems and investing in people through education programmes are essential beyond just hardware infrastructure.”

## Learning from GAVI and Existing Models

### Multi-Stakeholder Collaboration

Jason Slater highlighted how successful global alliances require bringing together diverse stakeholders as trusted conveners. He pointed to UNIDO’s AI for Manufacturing Global Alliance, which includes 140 members from over 40 countries, as an example of effective multi-stakeholder collaboration.

Alisson O’Beirne emphasized how “critical mass through collective action gives countries greater negotiating power than individual efforts.” This insight suggests that coordinated demand from multiple countries can influence market dynamics and pricing in ways that individual national efforts cannot achieve.

### Concrete Examples of Collaboration

Jason Slater presented UNIDO’s Ethiopia coffee project as a practical example of multi-stakeholder collaboration. The project brings together Italy, Ethiopia, Google, NGS, and the International Coffee Organization to address the EU deforestation directive while building local AI capacity.

Ivy Lau-Schindewolf highlighted OpenAI’s Stargate infrastructure project as an example of private sector leadership mobilizing diverse partners for large-scale compute infrastructure development. She also mentioned OpenAI’s Academy training, which has reached 1.4 million people globally, and partnerships with platforms like WhatsApp to provide AI access in low-connectivity environments.

Alisson O’Beirne announced Canada’s collaboration with the UK’s Foreign Commonwealth Development Office through a $10 million commitment from Canada’s IDRC to develop an “equal compute network.”

## Alternative Approaches and Innovation

### Remote Access vs. Local Infrastructure

The discussion explored whether countries require local computational infrastructure or whether remote access could suffice for many applications. Ivy Lau-Schindewolf argued that creative solutions, such as integrating AI capabilities through widely-used platforms, could provide immediate benefits while longer-term infrastructure development proceeds.

However, other panelists emphasized the importance of local infrastructure for enabling indigenous innovation and ensuring technological sovereignty. Elena Estavillo Flores noted that Global South regions have “managed to develop ingenuity and contextual intelligence to find solutions with very limited resources,” suggesting that “if this ingenuity is met with more infrastructure, then there is an opportunity.”

### Building on Local Innovation

Fabro Steibel mentioned that Brazil’s recently released AI national plan includes examples like “Favela GPT and Amazon GPT,” demonstrating local innovation that could be amplified through better infrastructure access.

Alisson O’Beirne expanded the discussion to include “equitability of design and equitability of use,” noting that “if we don’t have AI tools that are designed responsibly and that respond to the needs of local communities, access is not going to be sufficient.”

## Governance and Implementation Challenges

### Balancing Efficiency and Equity

Elena Estavillo Flores emphasized the need for “inclusive governance models with meaningful civil society participation” to ensure that fairness considerations are not subordinated to pure technical optimization. She highlighted that “credible governance models require trust-building mechanisms and fair benefit-sharing to maintain long-term participation and investment.”

### The Importance of Listening and Compromise

Alisson O’Beirne provided perhaps the most crucial insight for implementation, emphasizing that successful collaboration requires “a spirit of listening and openness and a spirit of compromise.” This recognition that technical and financial solutions alone are insufficient without genuine commitment to understanding diverse perspectives provides a foundation for moving from discussion to implementation.

## Concrete Next Steps and Commitments

### Immediate Opportunities

Jason Slater issued a direct call for participants to join UNIDO’s existing AI for Manufacturing Global Alliance, providing an immediate platform for multi-stakeholder collaboration. He also mentioned that the Global Digital Compact provides “a clear framework for action through multi-stakeholder approaches linking digital economy and AI objectives.”

### Committed Resources

Several concrete commitments emerged from the discussion:

– Canada’s IDRC and the UK’s Foreign Commonwealth Development Office have committed $10 million to develop an “equal compute network”

– OpenAI committed to expanding their “OpenAI for countries” programme and Academy training

– UNIDO committed to continuing development of AI lighthouse solutions beyond the Ethiopia coffee project

### Scaling Successful Models

Participants agreed to explore replicating successful consortium models for international compute infrastructure projects, indicating willingness to adapt proven approaches for broader international cooperation.

## Conclusion

The panel discussion revealed both the complexity of addressing global compute access challenges and the potential for meaningful international cooperation. The strong consensus on the need for multi-stakeholder collaboration, combined with concrete examples of successful initiatives and committed resources, suggests viable pathways for implementing global alliance models.

The most significant insight may be the recognition that successful collaboration requires not just technical and financial solutions, but genuine commitment to listening, compromise, and understanding diverse perspectives and needs. The path forward likely requires multiple collaborative approaches tailored to different communities and contexts, coordinated through existing international frameworks, and supported by a combination of public and private resources.

The urgency of action is clear, given the self-perpetuating nature of compute disadvantages and the rapid pace of AI development. However, the discussion suggests that the foundations for effective global cooperation exist, requiring primarily the political will and institutional commitment necessary to translate shared understanding into coordinated action.

Fabro Steibel: So, hello everyone, welcome to the panel. If you are online, welcome. If you are here in front of us, welcome. This is the panel Bridging the Compute Divide, a global alliance for AI. And if you ask if the global alliance or a global alliance, I think it might be a global alliance and even many global alliances as long as we have this idea of global alliance. We’ll introduce shortly the panel and then I’ll pass the words for three rounds of questions and then we open for your comments. So let me explain why we believe we need a global alliance for AI. My name is Fabio Steibel. I’m Executive Director of ITS Real Institute for Technology and Society and it’s a civil society. Last year on the topic of techno diversity, we came with the problem challenge that compute power will be very limited. And this is a different problem for society of information. Brazil has 1% of all data centers of the world. That’s half of Latin America. According to EAA numbers released this week, Brazil has 0.2% of the computational power. And it’s not to say that Brazil or any other country needs to have its own capacity, its own compute power, but the idea is to access. There is a big challenge for access if you look for… the Global North and the Global South bridge or other bridges you can do. This is why we suggest a global alliance for AI, what we call Gavi for AI. So if you’re not familiar with Gavi, it’s the global alliance for vaccination. In 2000, they started to put countries and foundations together to purchase something that was very limited in the market. Same problem we see here with compute power. Might be energy, might be compute parts, but it’s a limited supply of these elements to buy. So together, they could have three groups working. One, that gets the money and make sure everything is accountable. Two, that makes a technical definition of what they should buy. And three, a group that decides on how to share, how to distribute whatever they’re doing. Today, they are responsible for more than a third of the vaccines purchased in the world yearly. They were able to breach the limited supply and were able to increase access to vaccines. Is it the same for compute power? Some yes, some no. What are the lessons to be learned? What are the different approaches we have? So this is the intro. I will pass the word to the speakers. We have very different stakeholders here, which is the best approach to see the problem from different ways. So Jason, I’ll start with you. Jason Slata is the Chief AI Digital Innovation Officer at UNIDO. If you’re not familiar with UNIDO, it’s about industrial development, very important for the topic. Jason.

Jason Slater: Thank you very much for having me here today. Just very briefly, my name is Jason Slater. I’m the Chief AI Innovation and Digital Officer for the United Nations Industrial Development Organization. We’re an organization that’s been around nearly 60 years now. We’re a specialized UN agency with a very specific focus on how can we ensure a sustainable industrial development.

Fabro Steibel: We go for Elena Estavillo Flores. She founded and leads the Centro AI para la Sociedad del Futuro, a think tank that works to build the digital future in an ethical, responsible and inclusive way. Elena, can you hear us?

Elena Estavillo Flores: Yes, yes, I hear you very well. Hello.

Jason Slater: So, please introduce yourself very briefly and then later we go for the two questions.

Elena Estavillo Flores: Introduce myself? Yes, of course. I live in the Centro AI. As you told, this is an independent think tank and we work to foster ethical digital technologies, inclusion, responsibility. And I myself have a long career in regulation, in public policy. I was a regulator for telecommunications in Mexico and I also have taught for many years. I’m an economist.

Fabro Steibel: Thank you very much. I like very much to have economists in the panel. I’ll move now to Ivy. Ivy, Ivy Lau Schindelboff, works in international policy and partnerships at OpenAI. Hi, thank you so much for having me and for moderating and organizing this panel.

Ivy Lau-Schindewolf: My name is Ivy Lau Schindelboff. I am part of the global affairs team at OpenAI, based in our San Francisco headquarter. I wear two hats. One of them is I coordinate our work and growth markets and that means Africa, Latin America and APEC And the other hat I wear is I help lead our multilateral engagements. Pleasure to be here

Fabro Steibel: Thank you very much, Ivy. So now for the fourth participant Alisson O’Beirne is the Director of International Telecommunications and Internet Policy in the Department of Innovation, Science and Economic Development in the Government of Canada Thanks so much. I have a hideously long title. It’s mostly because of our department name. So you did very well there

Alisson O’Beirne: Hi folks, Alisson O’Beirne as as mentioned I’m the Director for International Telecoms and Internet Policy for our little team Within our what is equivalent to the Industry Department in the Government of Canada We have responsibilities for both the ITU and for Internet governance files for Government of Canada And it’s a role that I’ve actually been in for just under a year now So this is my first IGF and I am delighted to be able to experience it Live and in person after hearing about how great this forum is for many years And I had previously spent about five years in our same Industry Department working on AI policy So this is an issue that’s near and dear to my heart for sure

Fabro Steibel: Thank you. And you know Canada was one of the first countries to jump in the AI regulation arena So let’s move to a first question What are the key geopolitical and technical barriers? Preventing equitable access to computational power for AI development and how can International cooperation in particular help to address them. So what the barriers we have to achieve Access Jason, would you like to start?

Jason Slater: Yeah, thank you very much. Yeah, I Guess I a few things from what we see here that In terms of in terms of AI computing power This is really concentrated in in only a few nations right now. I think it’s roughly around 30 Primarily in US and China, etc and the way that I want to tackle this is really by looking at it from UNIDO’s perspective is who are the member states that we are primarily trying to support and where do we see this digital divide or AI computing divide so we can if we look at Africa for example we still see there that you know roughly globally there’s nearly nearly 3 billion still unconnected this is a huge challenge you see in Africa alone that in terms of AI and digital tools the adoptions in the region of 25% so for me one is of course in terms of you thinking about computing power and we have what we call these compute deserts where we have these these zones where there’s just simply no connectivity we also have to see it from how do we ensure adoption how do we also look at it from a skills perspective so there is a huge skills gap that we’re seeing right now and again if I look at Africa in particular but there’s some positive news and I think we’ll come to that later yeah when our fellow panelists have had a chance to speak so there are those are some of the barriers that we are seeing right now now one of the thing this has been framed very clearly by the global digital compact that was that was endorsed last last September in the United Nations General Assembly I was very fortunate to be there at the ceremony that was was celebrating us coming together under the pact for the future and one of my actual roles in the UN is and that’s what I would use as a call for action today is I’m vice chairing the objective number two on an inclusive digital economy which closely links to objective number five on AI so mine is is that we know what those challenges are which challenges to convert themselves into the barriers and how can we then switch that into a much more positive and solution mode and I’ll hold back on that because I think later on I’d like to talk about some of the things not only we’re doing but with our private sector partners and other stakeholders we’re putting in place.

Fabro Steibel: Yeah thank you very much Jason so Finland has a very good experiences on quantum computing and the challenge to share And the topics you bring also bring us very closely to meaningful connectivity Which is a interesting way to see the problem from ten years today ago to today. So I move now to to Ivy

Ivy Lau-Schindewolf: Yeah, I Keep thinking about the way the phrase Equitable access and what the barriers are and I actually want to like take a step back and and think about like just Barriers to access period and And what comes to mind and I think it’s important. It’s important to like Take a moment to think about The gap between supply and demand that everyone faces It’s actually We have reached we have received a lot of outreach from countries with a question of How much demand there really is like do we actually you know, we have this idea that we need GPUs But how much do we really need it? Can you help us quantify? And to be honest, it is not a question. We have thought a lot about until We have seen how fast our models have the demand for our products have grown when we launched at GPT in 22 or 23 now, I can’t remember it seems like a long time ago We thought it was a low-key research preview that nobody would use and pay attention to But then we actually ended up having a hundred million users in one month And now we have five hundred million weekly active users and our CEO Posted on X saying like our GPUs are melting and a lot of people thought oh my gosh, are they actually melting? They know they were not but like we actually just have seen a huge inference demand And that is not we knew training models would involve a lot of GPUs, but even we ourselves have underestimated how much demand there will be on inference. And as we have seen, the cost has come down, and when the cost of serving these models come down, the demand and the use also went up. And when we plotted out in a model, we realized, oh, no, we are not on a trajectory to meet the demands. And so even we ourselves in the U.S. realize we need access to more GPUs. And that’s why we launched Stargate and why we launched OpenAI for countries, and I’ll share more about that later, but I think I want to throw out the framing that, like, yes, we should think about, you know, the divide and whether the access is equitable, but maybe if we can zoom out a little bit, the problem isn’t just inequitable access. The problem is everyone needs more. How do we solve for the gap between supply and demand everywhere?

Fabro Steibel: Thank you. And I like to think like Brazil, we need to prepare for 5G and no connectivity, and you have to take both paths together because we have both audiences. So I will go online now to Elena.

Elena Estavillo Flores: Yes, thank you. I was also reflecting on the question because when we ask if we have enough access, maybe we’re thinking that there is computational power and the problem is how to access it or how to access it equitably. But in this aspect, we have the problem of not enough computational power. No. So it’s a double question about meeting demand and supply and then having the mechanisms. So. that everybody has, well, everybody in the interesting parties has this equitable access. So it’s not just a case of making sure to access to something that exists, but how to produce it. And then we have many barriers that keep just reinforcing themselves. And I’m thinking mostly of Latin America, the case that I know better, because we don’t have enough access to basic infrastructure, to services, to capacity in those services, now for final users. But then this comes over all of this, the companies, the scientists, the academia, the startups that could produce more services, more AI. They have this barrier because there’s not enough compute power so that they can develop the AI that is focused on the region, culture, needs, ways of deciding on how to use AI for which needs, for which problems to solve. So this is just something, it’s like a circle that keeps reinforcing itself. And I see something that it’s something that makes me reflect on whom makes the necessary investments so that there is more compute power in some countries than in others. And it’s very clear that, for example, in the U.S., mainly investment in compute power comes from companies. This is private investment that is oriented to the market. And we don’t see the same dynamics in many of our countries in Latin America. And we expect much of the investment coming from governments. But governments have not enough resources for these huge investments that we would need. And so that’s where this idea of collaborating for producing this infrastructure, this computing infrastructure regionally, well, this is very attractive because individually governments don’t have these resources. But also it comes to questioning us if this will be enough. We need the other side of the investment side from the private sector. So we also have to work on that. And also we can think of collaborative efforts, but bringing together the private sector so that we can gather these sufficient resources coming from only the governments. I don’t think that those will be sufficient.

Fabro Steibel: Elena, thank you very much for your contribution. Alisson, do you want to go next?

Alisson O’Beirne: Yeah, absolutely. I’ll keep my comments relatively brief because I think my colleagues have done a very good job of covering the ground so far. Maybe just to raise a couple of other things. I think we’ve talked a little bit about. And I really want to pick up on what Elena was talking about with regard to the sort of regional and the geographic differences in terms of access, I think is one of the major challenges that we’re facing. Recognizing that particularly for sort of emerging economies for the global south, there are cost issues that can be associated with, you know, developing or establishing compute capacity, that the cost of creating compute capacity is not the same in every region, that there are issues that come to infrastructure, that come to latency that already exists, that have to be addressed in order to be able to establish compute capacity. There’s also, I want to acknowledge, as I think Elena did as well, that there’s a real concentration of the current compute capacity in the hands of a very few providers who have incentives because of the scale of the demand and because of their proximity have incentives to really focus on sort of North American and Western European markets. So with those barriers that I think various folks on the panel have talked about, the one thing that I want to note is that the real challenge that we face is that some of those barriers are not only complex, but they’re also, they’re compounding, they’re self-perpetuating. So as folks are left behind and as there’s a lack in compute capacity, or in some cases lacking infrastructure, or in some cases even lacking demand side, like we talked about, you know, lacking skills or lacking awareness of the necessity of compute power, those that are already behind the game are going to be left further and further behind because as the demand increases in those places that already have compute capacity, we’re going to see just a continuation of response to that instead of a more equitable approach. So I think that’s, as Elena said, a place where governments and particularly where international discussions and international dialogues are critical because you can’t rely sort of on market forces to be able to correct for that need for equity and access.

Fabro Steibel: Thank you Alison and I think you remember that the legacy of the digital divide keeps going and then we have new challenges and the old challenge all together. Exactly. So I’ll go for the second question of the panel. What lessons can be drawn from Global Public Goods Initiatives, such as GAVI that I mentioned before Lessons to design a multilateral framework that ensures fair distribution of compute resources needed for AI development So Jason, we start with you

Jason Slater: Yeah, thank you Hmm, I Think there’s a lot of positives that we can look at that. I mean we when you talk about Multilateral or multi-stakeholder frameworks, it’s we actually launched a similar thing already Near two years ago now. It’s known as AI for manufacturing. It’s a global alliance and What the purpose of this is is that as a you as a as a UN agency that you actually as a trusted advisor if You like to convene and bring together stakeholders. We have around 140 members now from over 40 countries and it’s a complete mix of academia think tanks private sector we’ve got people such as You know Google Huawei imagining those two sitting around the table and what is it that they’re trying to do is to see and identify how we can Leverage AI that can support manufacturing Primarily in those countries that we want to support. So these are you know developing our middle-income countries? So in terms of how Gavi and what it did in bringing together this framework I think there’s a lot a lot of positives that one can see in it I just see from the perspective of what we’re doing around this aim global alliance not to be confused with the title is We want to make it much more solution orientated so when we talk around here now of digital divide of lack of skills of not on Let’s understand where we need to deploy such solutions, etc. So really become much more solution orientated We hear enough about the problems that are going on when the title here. We’re talking about geopolitical issues We’re in the UN and fully understanding that right now, but let’s get on the front foot. Yeah Because we do know that there are gaps. We know for example when we talk about computing power We know where there are challenges right now when it comes to growing a tomato and getting a tomato in Kenya To the market and how 20% of that is lost and here is perfect a use case for a way I can help it So for me bringing all those stakeholders together from the people who need all the way those who provide and Frankly from the UN to have this convening role that actually is a trusted advisor is a phenomenal thing that we can learn Based on the experiences of what happened with Gabi and that scheme before. Thank you Thank you, Jason, and I love that you bring the tomato from Kenya because it moves away from the prompting user Yeah, normal that resembles rural areas Manufacturing intermediaries sustainability and others. I’m going to talk about coffee as well in a few minutes as well.

Fabro Steibel: So Elena, do you want to go next?

Elena Estavillo Flores: Yes, of course about lessons. I think that we have many lessons one of how that an inclusive governance model works very well and in the sense that decisions were not solely shaped by by Some small group of nations of wealthier nations or a small group of corporate interests but that there were many multistakeholders just looking at a meaningful participation for for these different different actors and a civil society also played a very critical role in bringing transparency in monitoring and keeping this equity in Central to this monitoring know and and making sure that decision-making was very aware of of the need to ensure that distribution was fair. So we can learn from that, in that if we get to build this collaboration, that compute distribution will be not only looking at a technical efficiency, but also on socially fairness to distribute and to give access to this computing power. Also of being very aware of the importance of having corrective mechanisms to address historic inequality. So in this mechanisms that have to be designed, that we bring the factors of correcting and to bringing local institutions and research ecosystems to engage continually with these systems. So that it’s not only of bringing a technology or shipping in equipment to build the centers, but to really understand how compute is used for which needs and that local institutions and organizations are deciding on this.

Fabro Steibel: Thank you, Elena. And thank you for bringing the researchers and universities again to the topic. And I like the position you made from a technical solution to a fairness solution. It’s very difficult to define what fairness is, but it’s certainly something we have to pursue and define. So I like it very much. Ivy, do you want to go next?

Ivy Lau-Schindewolf: Sure. Yeah, it’s kind of hard to go after, you know, Elena. And that was a very, very good point and compelling. You know OpenAIR is just one company in this big world, in this ecosystem, but I think we will share what we see from our own vantage point and experience. I think what I couldn’t agree with more from both the Gavi example and what my co-panelists have shared is importance of working across sectors. And what I mean by that is we as a single company, for example, have learned from our Stargate experience that that definitely could not be accomplished by one party alone. And let me just maybe take a moment to explain what Stargate is and who is involved in it and why that convinced me that this has to be a multi-stakeholder solution. So Stargate is a 500 billion dollar infrastructure project, essentially, over the next four years. And we have started building data centers in Abilene, Texas. And this is who and how it all came together. Like Gavi, there is one group of partners that are technology and operations focused. So that includes OpenAI, Microsoft, NVIDIA, Oracle, ARM. And then we need another group of partners that can be finance focused. And for us, in this case, for Stargate, it’s SoftBank. They take up the financing responsibility. And the third group, very much like Gavi, how the responsibilities are distributed and structured, is the political side. This is something we are working with state governments on. And it extends to what we do internationally. And this is what we have talked to the U.S. government about. And I think another possibility I want to posit here is we have heard from a lot of countries that what they really, really want, or they’re not mutually exclusive. I think they want to make sure there is access to the benefits that compute and compute enabled models bring. And so in addition to thinking about infrastructure, we are also therefore very focused on how we can make access to the solutions that compute enable available. And that’s why when we launched OpenAI for countries, it is not copy paste Stargate everywhere. It actually is much more expansive than that. We think about how we work with different education partners, universities, schools, how we increase AI literacy. So we’re not just investing on the stuff, the hardware, right? We’re investing in people as well. We make our products freely available. We have a partnership with WhatsApp. So in low connectivity settings, people can still access the benefits of intelligence that compute enables. And all of that is something that, you know, like as one company, this is what we’re thinking about doing. But we also know that we need funding partners. We need operations partners, technology partners, political partners, very much like Gavi, so that this is something we can coordinate and offer to the world from very different levels of the stack, at the infrastructure level, at the solutions level, and at like even like a people level, so that we are as a society evolving along with the technology.

Fabro Steibel: Thank you. And that reminds me that bridging the compute power might or might not involve localities. So we can process data remotely. we have done. Brazil has a partnership with Spain for supercomputers. Finland has one. Estonia, I reckon, has one as well. So, we can solve problems where the energy is a possibility, where water is a possibility, but also where the supply and demand, it’s another part of the scale and can be achieved. Thank you. So, I move now to the third question of the panel. So, how can Global South nations shape AI governance and infrastructure policies to reduce dependence of foreign compute providers and build sustainable local AI capacity? What lessons can be learned from the Dipsy case or other cases that kind of rephrase it, how we ask questions about computational power? Jason, you want to start?

Jason Slater: No. No, thank you. I’m still wanting to answer the previous question. Tell us about coffee. Tell us about the coffee. Shall I? Because that may be something that can be, I think it’s actually very relevant to this when you’re talking about the Global South. So, I talked about tomatoes before. What we did last year on the sidelines of the General Assembly, we basically built what we call a Lighthouse solution. It links to AI. It was a consortium of two governments. So, Italy, Ethiopia, Ilia Levatsa, Google with one of its implementing partners, NGS and an international coffee organization. What was it we were trying to solve? There’s roughly around 3 billion cups of coffee drank a day. Ethiopia is the fifth largest coffee producers, the number one coffee producer in Africa. And there’s a new EU directive being issued called deforestation. And so, the challenge was, how can you leverage AI and digitalization to support coffee farmers? So, that’s why we built this consortium and brought everybody together. So, again, back to the GAVI example, the AIM Global, this was a very specific one. And there’s many, many other examples. That’s why it links nicely to what you mentioned with Stargate. It’s a huge case where people came together because you could not possibly Solve it as a UN agency or individually. So that was the coffee example. We brought it together. We have a solution We went to Addis. We actually met and Presented this to the coffee farmers association themselves. They didn’t like it. We had McKinsey present didn’t like it Why because they didn’t understand the incentive our land is not subjected to deforestation Only a couple two percent so but when one understands that in order to comply with this directive that it opens up of Opportunities along the supply chain that openly is about, you know, increasing productivity and what-have-you Then we tapped into the real incentive behind it So that’s another thing when we know that there are I when you when you talk about the usages etc And then GPUs and what-have-you I think about there’s so many faces out there where they don’t yet know how AI And digitalization is going to support them. So that was the very that was the coffee example Where are we now 12 months on? We are now looking to see whether we can actually implement some pilot that within Ethiopia in addition to that that consortium are opening up and an AI initiative in Italy Bringing those examples together primarily in the area of coffee. So that was the specific example. I’ll I’ll answer this question later

Fabro Steibel: I Think I Like very much the coffee example because it’s hands-on and in deforestation we bring the AI and climate Close to each other. So you have wonderful uses for mapping deforestation mapping disasters predicting climate and many other things and If you do it together, if you have elements of these that are open that can be shared It certainly is an asset for global global climate change so Could you go next? Yes.

Elena Estavillo Flores: Well, I’ve already said about something that I wanted to focus on in the importance of investing in people, in investing in local talent, and not just thinking of the hard work and and supporting community-driven research, because countries are innovating despite this infrastructure gaps. And this, I find this very interesting, you know, something that we always are, repeat now in Mexico, but that I believe that it is true of many other countries, is that given that we don’t have many resources, so then we have managed to develop ingenuity and contextual intelligence to find solutions with very limited resources. And I see that this is happening also in AI development, that we look at researchers, small developers in civil society that are experimenting and they are using open source and small scales, hybrid models and finding interesting developments. So I think that this is something to learn from and these are opportunities. And if this ingenuity is met with more infrastructure, because we definitely need it, and we can find these collaborative ways to find this infrastructure, then there is an opportunity to meeting. ingenuity with infrastructure. And and also, I find another thing that I find very interesting is that these regions of the world, not like like Latin America, are are pushing for more plural and justice center vision of AI. And also where we emphasize not only into an individual, but collective rights. And this can also help us build government, a strong governance for AI and reshaping this this AI, this governance for AI in a way that that protects these different models of innovation and different models of of protecting individual and collective rights.

Fabro Steibel: Thank you, Elena. And you remind me of how from the global south, we just have to be creative with scarce resources. We just have to hack it. We just have to to make it happen. If we level up the opportunities for certainly for sure, we’re going to have more better results. So, Ivy, do you want to go next? Sure.

Ivy Lau-Schindewolf: All this talk of infrastructure just reminded me that when I first landed in Oslo Airport and then took the train to the city, I’m like, wow, like when trains work, it is an amazing experience and it is such a great utility. And I wish my home city of San Francisco would offer the same thing. And I mentioned that example, because I think when we talk about chips and compute, sometimes it just, you know, we we might think of it as a different category, as other infrastructure that have built cities and nations. And when you ask the question, Fabio, about what to do about that lack of access. I think it’s kind of how we think about what everyone can do about the gap in supply and demand. How can we solve for the problem of access to the infrastructure and the problem of access to the benefits of infrastructure? If we can’t access to the infrastructure to the same degree, is there a creative way to access the benefits? And I want to maybe offer two more things in addition to talking about data centers. One is I think it’s important to incentivize and cultivate a vibrant local startup ecosystem. If you have chips and you have maybe some people who know how to use a tool, but there aren’t entrepreneurs and if you don’t incentivize and really cultivate that growth, then I feel like we’re not really facilitating access. We’re not facilitating innovation. We’re not facilitating access to the benefits of the technology. So I think that is really important. It’s like one of the prongs of what we offer when we say we’re launching OpenAI for countries. And then the other thing is kind of touching on what Elena also mentioned and what I said earlier about like investing in people. We launched OpenAI Academy earlier this year and we are just starting to scale. And if you haven’t seen some of our videos online already, I encourage you to do that. We have been in production like every week and they are for all sectors and they’re all for all skills levels. And sometimes we offer in-person events as well. And the main point here is not like, look, there are more free videos to watch. They are. And like, we’re proud to say that we have trained 1.4 million people already. But I but I think like to think when we think about access, there needs to be like a very concrete way to apply the technology. And we can’t do that if we don’t actually know what it is and what to do that with. I very much I’m excited that when we move from day zero to day one, well, maybe day one to day two, to be fair about all the progress we have seen already, that there will be a much more sophisticated and maybe even demanding like approach to like how we use the compute and the tools that the compute empower and not just talking about like the stuff itself.

Fabro Steibel: Thanks, Ivy. You reminded me that prompting brings humans able to easily talk to computers. So when you have descriptive AI, you usually need a team of technicians to code something. So we use the result. When we have generative AI, we regain this capacity to be a normal user, to make use of technology, which brings the issue of supply and demand to a great distress, because now we have way more need for technologies and uses. So Alison.

Alisson O’Beirne: Yeah, sure. Thanks. I think the question really is about how we include how we include Global South voices in conversations around AI. And I will continue to make it a policy not to tell the Global South how to do policy. But I will say that I think that one of the effective ways that we ensure that we have voices from the Global South in the conversation, and it really reflects back on what Elena was talking about in the Gavi model, is ensuring that we have. a multi-stakeholder approach and one that thinks about including a whole range of different potential partners. So when we’re talking about something like, you know, a global alliance for artificial intelligence, we have to think about ensuring that we’re talking to large and to small providers and users. We have to think about talking about both public and private space. Like it has to be the big AI institutions, the accelerators, the startups, the governments, all coming into the conversation together. That’ll be the most effective way for us to be able to make progress on ensuring equitable access to what’s needed for compute capacity. I’m going to give a little plug to a Canadian initiative in this regard because I can’t be stopped. What we have from our International Development Research Centre in Canada, IDRC, are working with the UK’s Foreign and Commonwealth Development Office that have committed sort of $10 million to the development of an equal compute network that strives to do exactly this. So strives to bring together a number of different partners and a number of different types of partners to think about equitable access to compute capacity. And one of the things that the network really hopes to achieve is by bringing together a number of different sort of partners from the global south together. It allows the possibility to kind of create a critical mass in order to obtain sort of better rates and better processes as they’re looking to establish compute capacity. When you have a number of different countries or a number of different institutions who are speaking together, they have greater power together than they can each individually have on their own. And that’s sort of the value of both the international or the global alliance model and also of the multi-stakeholder model. So it’s a nice little Canadian piece we’ve got.

Fabro Steibel: I like the Canadian piece. We have time for one last question. And one thing I like about Gavi is that they have a political group on how to share the assets. So imagine you buy 100 units of something and they will have to chip in, contribute, find consensus on how to share. So in the case of Gavi, part of it will go for countries that can pay for vaccines. So the model is sustainable. Part of the vaccines will go to countries that cannot pay for a vaccine so there’s access. Part goes to countries that are doing an effort to be more sustainable or to produce vaccines and so on. And all of these are political questions that address how to share. So if you can purchase, you can buy finance. If you know what we are buying, if it is a commodity that we can have it, there’s a political group that will decide on how to share it and mood stakeholder seems like a good approach to do that. So I’ll go for the last question so you can advance in one of the points that you made. Jason, for example, said a call to action in the first question if you want to bring back. If you want to bring from tomatoes to coffee to something else, feel free. And in case you have questions, I have further questions for you. So Jason, what would you like to expand?

Jason Slater: No, thank you. Well, linking it to what you just mentioned there and Gavi, we have, as I see a global digital compact in place, a pack for the future. We have a very clear way forward with those objectives. So that’s my first. That is a multi-stakeholder approach. That was governments, that was tech, that was academia. We all came together. We’re nearly 12 months in and there’s momentum. We under the objective number two regarding digital economy, which links to objective five AI, have a very clear call for solution to call for action in that links to what I mentioned before. We already have an alliance, a global alliance on AI for manufacturing, which has actually three pillars to it, which is one around smart manufacturing, which is not so much about tomatoes and coffee, but it’s when it starts to get a bit harder, you know, on the shop floor and how can you infuse AI in the production process. Then we have our AI lighthouse solutions that I just mentioned. The one that I, the example I gave was the one around coffee. We’re also building up around other products. I’m hoping we collaborate with open AI, by the way. and the third component and that as I mentioned is around digital economy that links it directly back so our mandate in UNIDO is to make sure that we implement what is being committed under the GDC and last but not least I there’s a point that Elena mentioned before that I also didn’t uh that I that I mentioned and you also mentioned in terms of regulation around um 4G 5G etc coming in is this open innovation we also have this program that supports that that again is not it’s not a UNIDO program it’s an open one that we convene we bring together this multi-stakeholder around innovation how can you help those great ideas those startups those innovators and bring corporates together as well and importantly investment there is a clear funding requirement here we come and go projects end but then so what so that’s basically what I just wanted to mention is in terms of this multi-stakeholder around the GDC the aim global and those components I also think as you mentioned there about this model for Gavi we are also trying to make sure there is a sustainable model in place that ensures that these great ideas that’s going to come becomes something that’s investable and sustainable so that it then can be ultimately replicated not just in Ethiopia on coffee but we can take it to Latin America you know tomatoes are grown in most places how can we come to COP and ensure that we bring a solution in place that helps mitigate climate change so that would be my call for action please please join us and we will do our utmost to promote the solutions that people are working on thank you.

Fabro Steibel: Thank you Jason and I was in Bonn last week for the SB 62 and the issue of how to use technology to advance climate agenda and how to make technology greener is top of mind maybe will be a big team for COP 30 this year so Helena moving to you I think we shared the challenges of talking from the civil society point of view And it’s always an interesting point of view, because we’re not government, we’re not companies, we’re kind of bringing issues to the debate. So what topic would you like to advance?

Elena Estavillo Flores: What topic? Well, governance, we have been talking about governance, but we’re supposing that the system already exists and we also need to create and to maintain the necessary incentives to create the model and then to sustain it. And one of it is to produce a model that is credible, that brings certainty and so that people trust it. No, the people trust it, and then we have this necessary trust to keep it together and to keep investment coming. And and the countries that invest in it have also need this, the right combination of of incentives to continue dedicating resources for this. And this this should come from different expectations. One is to to have a fair share of benefits from the model. And also to by the means of trust and credibility to keep believing now in this model that is bringing benefits to to the region. and Benefits for Inclusive Development and Sustainable Development. And that’s why I believe that the role of civil society as a component of this governance that produces trust and credibility is so important.

Fabro Steibel: Thank you. This reminds me that usually governments have an AI national plan for development. If I’m right, we see the Observatory ranked 81 countries that have a plan of action for AI. Brazil just released it last month. And one key thing is what kind of pillars we have in this development. So what Elena brings is that it needs to be multistakeholder. What you bring is that it needs to have open innovation. It has to be shared. And this is really interesting. So, Ivy, I go to you. I think one interesting point of view is that companies are very different from each other. So we think of them like the big techs or something like that, but they’re very different. The Americans are very different from Europeans, very different from Chinese. And if you look at one country, they’re very different. And all of them are trying to bring solutions for bridging the compute power from the perspective. So what point would you like to advance?

Ivy Lau-Schindewolf: Thank you for framing it that way, because I was sitting here thinking, you know, I really am not qualified to tell other people what to do. Right. We’re just one company. I can’t tell what governments want to do, what other companies to do and what all of global South should do. But from the perspective of just one company based in San Francisco, what I think I want to the one call to action, so to speak, is let’s use this technology to build a tool. And I’m here to talk to you about how we can use our tools to solve hard problems. I think, I don’t know if everyone has to worry about getting chips the same way. If all of us can get the benefits to the chips the same way. To accomplish that end is to make our tools accessible. That’s why we have, like I mentioned earlier, an integration with WhatsApp so that it’s workable even in low connectivity settings. We are rolling out open weights models later this summer. You mentioned the Brazil AI plan. And two of the examples that were mentioned in that plan were Favela GPT and Amazon GPT. Favela, you know, we made the tool usable in a lot of favelas. And we also have a partnership with the university and Amazon. So that our tool is enabling conservation and health insights that are already helping residents. And just to help preserve the largest rainforest on the planet. And this is the kind of story that really excites me. That we really, there is so much more to come. And that progress is, you know, it’s happening today, right now. And so let’s think about how we use what exists and what is to come. And to solve hard problems and advance the benefits of LLMs.

Fabro Steibel: Thanks, Ivy. And if you are online and want to post the questions, or if you are in the audience, please make a queue. After Alison’s contributions, we’re going to open the floor for participation.

Alisson O’Beirne: Perfect, thanks. I think, really following on from Ivy’s point, I think that… There is something very important to be said for international action to support equitability of access to compute capacity. I think that there’s a recognition, even among those who already sort of have good access to compute, there’s a recognition of the value of sort of sovereign abilities or sovereign access to compute capacity, even in kind of Western Europe and North America. And so it’s understandable that the Global South also ought to be able to play into that ecosystem, that there also ought to be an equitability of access there. But going beyond equitability of compute access, I think it’s also true that if we don’t have AI tools that are designed responsibly and that respond to the needs of local communities, access is not going to be sufficient. So having access to compute capacity doesn’t mean anything. If we think about equitability of access, we also have to be thinking about equitability of design, designing AI systems and tools that are free from bias, that reflect linguistic diversity, that are climate conscious in the way that they’re created. And then equitability of use as well, designing AI tools that protect the individuals that are really looking to seek the benefits of the use of artificial intelligence, that protect workers, that support development purposes, and that have benefits beyond kind of a small group that would already have access to kind of privileges in that regard. So I think really, as we think about equitability of access, it has to be part of a broader conversation about equitability in the design and the use of AI systems as well.

Fabro Steibel: Thank you, Alison. Let me check if there is anyone online or in the audience that want to make a comment. No? I’ll check here. So we go for a last question. And I think that I like the climate agenda and the relationship with it. And what you bring, Alison, is that compute power is the start of it. And the governments will have a huge role on how to control it or make it safer. make it more secure. And they have to relate. And there’s a huge challenge now for climate, which was a problem already. Now it’s a bigger problem. So as concluding remarks, what would you like to highlight or call to action?

Jason Slater: Again, I just underline what we’ve all in our different aspects been saying about is, you know, collaboration is absolutely critical in this moment now around AI, understanding what the needs of it are, what the computing power of it is, making sure that we don’t leave the global south, that the divide doesn’t get bigger, etc. So my final comment would just be that that, you know, let’s, let’s join this alliance. Because as Stargate mentioned, and by Ivy, as what’s going on now with the AI factory that’s being opened up in South Africa, collaboration between NVIDIA and Cassava, what’s going on in Italy, what’s happening in the country, I just left a few hours ago in Austria with AI Gigafactory. It is a consortium of people that’s coming together. And yes, taking all of those components around the ethics of AI, making sure that this is equitable, that it is transparent, it’s inclusive, it’s collaborative, it’s reliable, it’s safe, and it ensures privacy. Privacy was a big issue on the coffee example. I didn’t mention that before. So that would be my final one is just I could not underline any further than what we’ve all collectively said on all those various levels. All I would offer is enough from perspective of UNIDO, we do have a platform in place, I don’t say we’re happy to help and to support and join forces. Thank you.

Fabro Steibel: Thank you. Elena, do you want to go for

Elena Estavillo Flores: Yes, yes, of course. And I will build upon concluding remarks or highlights? on the same ideas. Because These technologies tend to concentrate and to build a scale, so countries, smaller countries or countries that have smaller access to resources have to collaborate, have to collaborate to attain enough scale to be part of the movement. Otherwise, we will have bigger gaps in our development. And so this collaboration, I believe that is a must right now, just to bridge gaps and to change this mode of development that has produced so many persistent gaps that will get wider. So that’s why collaboration has to be the new mode of development.

Fabro Steibel: Thank you. And I hope collaboration sparks for the global alliance from what is happening, could happen just outside of here. So Ivy, do you want to go for the concluding remarks?

Ivy Lau-Schindewolf: At the risk of just repeating myself and other people, I will actually still say there’s something maybe to the trifecta of political, financial and technical operational partners as the way we think about who should be at the table. So and I think that is necessary in all countries and in all fora. And so that we can truly, truly collaborate and take into account all the equities. Because we’re talking about a really a massive, massive scale of infrastructure and a massive, massive potential of transformation.

Fabro Steibel: Thank you. Alisson.

Alisson O’Beirne: Thank you. Always dangerous to go last for this thing. I think I really, I want to build on the idea of collaboration, which I think a lot of us have talked about today, and I think is super valuable as we’re discussing how to kind of encourage that sort of equitable access to the benefits of artificial intelligence. And one thing that I want to build on that concept of collaboration at the risk of being controversial is the need for collaboration to be in a spirit of openness and in a spirit of listening. And it doesn’t matter what kind of equitability challenge we’re talking about, whether it’s the sort of global south’s compute access, whether we’re talking about linguistic diversity in the internet or in AI, whether we’re talking about in Canada, Indigenous connectivity and Indigenous data sovereignty, when we are in these equitability conversations and when we are thinking about how we collaborate with partners, one of the biggest challenges that we see is that governments are not immune to this. We will often come to the table in a spirit of collaboration, meaning here’s my idea and everyone must agree with it in order for us to collaborate. And I think there really needs to be in a space like AI, where the technology is evolving and where our understanding of the capacities and the understanding of the benefits is evolving. We have to come in a spirit of listening and openness and in a spirit of compromise as well. If we want to have collective action, we are going to have to have compromise and we are going to have to have a recognition of the needs of others and a recognition that we don’t always understand the needs of folks who are outside our own context in our own community. So I think that is one of like, if I have a call to action, it really is to come to collaboration in a spirit of sometimes recognizing that maybe your own positioning is wrong or that you need to adjust your own approach in order to be able to meet the needs of other communities. If we’re not able to do that, then we won’t be able to take collective action on these equitability issues and they can’t be solved without collective action.

Fabro Steibel: Thank you. So, with this, I’ll do some concluding remarks and end the panel. I started the panel wondering if there is a need for a global alliance, and yes, not the global alliance, but many global alliances, a diversity of global alliances, and the global alliances, they’ll have shared problems, but also different communities, so they need to find this collaboration according to their communities. Maybe the community of IGF is different from COP, which is different from G20, and so on, and collaboration, off-collaboration, is really important. I still hope that we can increase the access to compute power in the global South somehow, either installing compute power locally, but or sharing compute power. I still hope that we can share compute powers amongst countries and in a collaboration, so Brazil has a collaboration with Spain, for example, for supercomputers, and I still hope that the issue of information society becomes enhanced by this access to a technology that can be transformative, but can also place risks and challenges. So, thank you very much for the participation, and we conclude. Thank you.

Agreement points

Multi-stakeholder collaboration is essential for addressing compute access challenges

Speakers

– Jason Slater
– Ivy Lau-Schindewolf
– Elena Estavillo Flores
– Alisson O’Beirne

Arguments

Multi-stakeholder frameworks like UNIDO’s AI for manufacturing alliance demonstrate the value of bringing diverse stakeholders together as trusted conveners

Multi-sector collaboration is essential, as demonstrated by Stargate’s structure with technology, finance, and political partners

Inclusive governance models with meaningful civil society participation ensure fairness over pure technical efficiency

Multi-stakeholder approaches including diverse partners from public and private sectors ensure Global South voices in AI governance

Summary

All speakers agreed that addressing compute access requires bringing together diverse stakeholders including governments, private sector, academia, and civil society organizations, with each contributing different capabilities and perspectives

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory

The compute divide creates self-perpetuating disadvantages that require collective action

Speakers

– Jason Slater
– Elena Estavillo Flores
– Alisson O’Beirne

Arguments

Compute power is concentrated in only a few nations, creating compute deserts with no connectivity and significant skills gaps

Infrastructure barriers are compounded by lack of private investment in Latin America, where governments lack sufficient resources for necessary investments

Geographic cost differences and market concentration create self-perpetuating disadvantages for emerging economies

Summary

Speakers agreed that the concentration of compute power creates reinforcing cycles of disadvantage where those already behind fall further behind, requiring coordinated intervention to break these patterns

Topics

Development | Economic | Infrastructure

Solutions must go beyond hardware infrastructure to include human capacity building

Speakers

– Jason Slater
– Ivy Lau-Schindewolf
– Elena Estavillo Flores

Arguments

Compute power is concentrated in only a few nations, creating compute deserts with no connectivity and significant skills gaps

Cultivating vibrant startup ecosystems and investing in people through education programs are essential beyond just hardware infrastructure

Local ingenuity and contextual intelligence in resource-constrained environments create opportunities when combined with better infrastructure

Summary

All three speakers emphasized that addressing the compute divide requires investing in people, skills development, and local innovation ecosystems, not just physical infrastructure

Topics

Development | Sociocultural

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized the critical importance of ensuring Global South voices are meaningfully included in AI governance structures, with Elena focusing on civil society’s role in ensuring fairness and Alisson emphasizing comprehensive multi-stakeholder inclusion

Speakers

– Elena Estavillo Flores
– Alisson O’Beirne

Arguments

Inclusive governance models with meaningful civil society participation ensure fairness over pure technical efficiency

Multi-stakeholder approaches including diverse partners from public and private sectors ensure Global South voices in AI governance

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Both speakers provided concrete examples of large-scale collaborative projects that demonstrate how different types of partners (technical, financial, political) must work together to achieve infrastructure goals

Speakers

– Jason Slater
– Ivy Lau-Schindewolf

Arguments

Practical solutions like the Ethiopia coffee project show how consortiums can address specific local challenges while building capacity

Multi-sector collaboration is essential, as demonstrated by Stargate’s structure with technology, finance, and political partners

Topics

Infrastructure | Economic

Both speakers emphasized that sustainable collaborative models require building trust and creating fair mechanisms for participation and benefit-sharing, with collective action providing stronger negotiating positions than individual country efforts

Speakers

– Elena Estavillo Flores
– Alisson O’Beirne

Arguments

Credible governance models require trust-building mechanisms and fair benefit-sharing to maintain long-term participation and investment

Critical mass through collective action gives countries greater negotiating power than individual efforts

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development | Economic

Unexpected consensus

Universal supply and demand gap affecting all regions

Speakers

– Ivy Lau-Schindewolf
– Elena Estavillo Flores

Arguments

The gap between supply and demand affects everyone, with underestimated inference demand creating global GPU shortages

Infrastructure barriers are compounded by lack of private investment in Latin America, where governments lack sufficient resources for necessary investments

Explanation

Unexpectedly, both a major AI company representative and a Global South policy expert agreed that the compute shortage is a universal problem rather than just an equity issue, with Ivy noting that even OpenAI faces supply constraints and Elena acknowledging the global nature of insufficient compute power

Topics

Infrastructure | Economic

Importance of local innovation and contextual solutions

Speakers

– Elena Estavillo Flores
– Jason Slater

Arguments

Local ingenuity and contextual intelligence in resource-constrained environments create opportunities when combined with better infrastructure

Practical solutions like the Ethiopia coffee project show how consortiums can address specific local challenges while building capacity

Explanation

There was unexpected consensus between a civil society representative and a UN official on the value of locally-driven innovation, with both emphasizing that solutions must be contextually relevant rather than one-size-fits-all approaches

Topics

Development | Sociocultural

Overall assessment

Summary

The speakers demonstrated remarkably high consensus on the need for multi-stakeholder collaboration, the self-perpetuating nature of the compute divide, and the importance of human capacity building alongside infrastructure development. There was also strong agreement on governance principles emphasizing inclusivity and fairness.

Consensus level

High consensus with complementary perspectives rather than conflicting viewpoints. The speakers represented different sectors (UN, government, private sector, civil society) but shared fundamental agreement on problem diagnosis and solution approaches. This strong consensus suggests viable pathways for implementing global alliance models for AI compute access, with each sector bringing necessary but different capabilities to the collaboration.

Different viewpoints

Primary approach to solving compute access – infrastructure vs. access to benefits

Speakers

– Ivy Lau-Schindewolf
– Elena Estavillo Flores
– Jason Slater

Arguments

Making AI tools accessible through various means, including low-connectivity solutions, can provide benefits without requiring local compute infrastructure

Infrastructure barriers are compounded by lack of private investment in Latin America, where governments lack sufficient resources for necessary investments

Practical solutions like the Ethiopia coffee project show how consortiums can address specific local challenges while building capacity

Summary

Ivy emphasizes making AI tools accessible without necessarily requiring local infrastructure, focusing on creative solutions like WhatsApp integration. Elena and Jason emphasize the need for actual infrastructure development and local capacity building, with Elena particularly stressing the investment challenges in Latin America.

Topics

Development | Infrastructure | Economic

Role of private sector vs. government investment in compute infrastructure

Speakers

– Ivy Lau-Schindewolf
– Elena Estavillo Flores

Arguments

Multi-sector collaboration is essential, as demonstrated by Stargate’s structure with technology, finance, and political partners

Infrastructure barriers are compounded by lack of private investment in Latin America, where governments lack sufficient resources for necessary investments

Summary

Ivy presents a model where private sector leads with companies like OpenAI, Microsoft, and SoftBank taking primary roles, while Elena argues that Latin America lacks sufficient private investment and governments don’t have adequate resources, suggesting need for different collaborative models.

Topics

Economic | Development | Infrastructure

Unexpected differences

Framing of the core problem – supply shortage vs. access inequality

Speakers

– Ivy Lau-Schindewolf
– Elena Estavillo Flores
– Fabro Steibel

Arguments

The gap between supply and demand affects everyone, with underestimated inference demand creating global GPU shortages

Infrastructure barriers are compounded by lack of private investment in Latin America, where governments lack sufficient resources for necessary investments

Brazil has only 1% of global data centers and 0.2% of computational power, highlighting access challenges

Explanation

Unexpectedly, there’s disagreement on whether the fundamental issue is global supply shortage (Ivy’s position) versus unequal distribution and access (Elena and Fabro’s position). This is significant because it affects whether solutions should focus on increasing overall supply or redistributing existing capacity.

Topics

Infrastructure | Economic | Development

Overall assessment

Summary

The main areas of disagreement center on: 1) Whether to prioritize infrastructure development vs. tool accessibility, 2) The appropriate balance between private sector leadership vs. government/multilateral coordination, and 3) Whether the core problem is supply shortage vs. access inequality

Disagreement level

Low to moderate disagreement level. While speakers have different emphases and approaches, they share fundamental agreement on the need for collaboration and addressing compute access challenges. The disagreements are more about strategy and implementation rather than fundamental goals, which suggests potential for finding common ground and complementary approaches rather than conflicting solutions.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized the critical importance of ensuring Global South voices are meaningfully included in AI governance structures, with Elena focusing on civil society’s role in ensuring fairness and Alisson emphasizing comprehensive multi-stakeholder inclusion

Speakers

– Elena Estavillo Flores
– Alisson O’Beirne

Arguments

Inclusive governance models with meaningful civil society participation ensure fairness over pure technical efficiency

Multi-stakeholder approaches including diverse partners from public and private sectors ensure Global South voices in AI governance

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Both speakers provided concrete examples of large-scale collaborative projects that demonstrate how different types of partners (technical, financial, political) must work together to achieve infrastructure goals

Speakers

– Jason Slater
– Ivy Lau-Schindewolf

Arguments

Practical solutions like the Ethiopia coffee project show how consortiums can address specific local challenges while building capacity

Multi-sector collaboration is essential, as demonstrated by Stargate’s structure with technology, finance, and political partners

Topics

Infrastructure | Economic

Both speakers emphasized that sustainable collaborative models require building trust and creating fair mechanisms for participation and benefit-sharing, with collective action providing stronger negotiating positions than individual country efforts

Speakers

– Elena Estavillo Flores
– Alisson O’Beirne

Arguments

Credible governance models require trust-building mechanisms and fair benefit-sharing to maintain long-term participation and investment

Critical mass through collective action gives countries greater negotiating power than individual efforts

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development | Economic

Key takeaways

There is a critical need for multiple global alliances for AI compute access, similar to GAVI’s model for vaccines, but adapted to different communities and contexts

The compute divide is both a supply problem (insufficient global capacity) and an access problem (inequitable distribution), affecting even developed nations

Multi-stakeholder collaboration involving technology, finance, and political partners is essential for addressing compute access challenges

Local capacity building must go beyond infrastructure to include skills development, startup ecosystems, and culturally relevant AI solutions

Equitable access encompasses not just compute power but also equitable design and use of AI systems that reflect linguistic diversity and local needs

Alternative approaches like remote compute access and tool accessibility can provide AI benefits without requiring local infrastructure investment

Civil society plays a crucial role in ensuring governance models remain credible, transparent, and focused on fair benefit distribution

Successful collaboration requires openness, compromise, and recognition of diverse community needs rather than imposing single solutions

Resolutions and action items

Jason Slater called for joining UNIDO’s existing AI for manufacturing global alliance with 140 members from 40+ countries

Participants encouraged to engage with the Global Digital Compact framework for implementing multi-stakeholder AI solutions

OpenAI committed to expanding their ‘OpenAI for countries’ program and Academy training (already reaching 1.4 million people)

Canada’s IDRC and UK’s Foreign Commonwealth Development Office committed $10 million to develop an ‘equal compute network’

UNIDO to continue developing AI lighthouse solutions beyond the Ethiopia coffee project to other regions and use cases

Participants agreed to explore replicating successful consortium models like Stargate for international compute infrastructure projects

Unresolved issues

How to quantify actual compute demand versus perceived need in different regions and sectors

Specific mechanisms for fair distribution of compute resources among participating countries in a global alliance

Sustainable financing models that balance private investment with public sector participation in developing countries

Technical standards and interoperability requirements for shared compute infrastructure across borders

Governance structures that can effectively balance efficiency with equity in resource allocation decisions

How to address the climate impact of increased compute infrastructure while meeting development needs

Specific metrics and accountability mechanisms for measuring equitable access and benefit distribution

Integration challenges between different national AI development plans and international collaboration frameworks

Suggested compromises

Accepting that not every country needs local compute infrastructure if they can access benefits through remote processing and tool accessibility

Balancing market-driven efficiency with equity considerations through hybrid public-private partnership models

Combining infrastructure investment with people-focused programs (education, startups, local innovation) rather than hardware-only approaches

Allowing for diverse governance models across different regional alliances while maintaining interoperability and shared principles

Recognizing that collaboration requires adjusting individual country positions and approaches to meet collective needs

Accepting that multiple global alliances may be needed for different communities rather than seeking one universal solution

Integrating climate considerations with development needs rather than treating them as competing priorities

The problem isn’t just inequitable access. The problem is everyone needs more. How do we solve for the gap between supply and demand everywhere?

Speaker

Ivy Lau-Schindewolf

Reason

This comment fundamentally reframed the entire discussion by challenging the basic assumption that the issue is primarily about distribution of existing resources. Instead, it highlighted that even developed nations face compute scarcity, shifting the focus from a North-South divide to a universal supply-demand crisis.

Impact

This reframing influenced subsequent speakers to acknowledge the dual nature of the problem – both scarcity and inequitable access. It moved the conversation away from a simple redistribution model toward more complex solutions involving capacity building and creative access mechanisms.

We don’t have enough access to basic infrastructure… But then this comes over all of this, the companies, the scientists, the academia, the startups that could produce more services, more AI. They have this barrier because there’s not enough compute power so that they can develop the AI that is focused on the region, culture, needs… So this is just something, it’s like a circle that keeps reinforcing itself.

Speaker

Elena Estavillo Flores

Reason

This insight identified the self-perpetuating nature of the compute divide, showing how lack of access creates a vicious cycle that prevents local innovation and cultural adaptation of AI technologies. It connected infrastructure gaps to broader issues of technological sovereignty and cultural representation.

Impact

This comment deepened the discussion by introducing the concept of compound disadvantages and helped other panelists recognize that the problem extends beyond mere access to include innovation capacity and cultural relevance. It influenced later discussions about the need for local talent development and community-driven research.

Given that we don’t have many resources, so then we have managed to develop ingenuity and contextual intelligence to find solutions with very limited resources… if this ingenuity is met with more infrastructure… then there is an opportunity to meeting ingenuity with infrastructure.

Speaker

Elena Estavillo Flores

Reason

This comment flipped the narrative from deficit-focused to asset-based thinking, highlighting how resource constraints in the Global South have fostered innovation and creativity. It suggested that the solution isn’t just about providing resources but about amplifying existing capabilities.

Impact

This perspective shift influenced the conversation to consider Global South countries not just as recipients of aid but as sources of innovation. It contributed to a more nuanced understanding of collaboration that values different forms of intelligence and problem-solving approaches.

Some of those barriers are not only complex, but they’re also, they’re compounding, they’re self-perpetuating. So as folks are left behind and as there’s a lack in compute capacity… those that are already behind the game are going to be left further and further behind because as the demand increases in those places that already have compute capacity, we’re going to see just a continuation of response to that instead of a more equitable approach.

Speaker

Alisson O’Beirne

Reason

This comment introduced a temporal dimension to the inequality problem, showing how current disparities will exponentially worsen over time without intervention. It highlighted the urgency of action and the inadequacy of market-based solutions alone.

Impact

This insight reinforced the need for proactive international cooperation and helped justify why market forces alone cannot solve the equity problem. It strengthened arguments for coordinated global action and influenced the discussion toward more interventionist approaches.

Going beyond equitability of compute access… if we don’t have AI tools that are designed responsibly and that respond to the needs of local communities, access is not going to be sufficient. So having access to compute capacity doesn’t mean anything. If we think about equitability of access, we also have to be thinking about equitability of design… and equitability of use as well.

Speaker

Alisson O’Beirne

Reason

This comment expanded the scope of the discussion beyond infrastructure to include the entire AI development and deployment pipeline. It introduced the concept that true equity requires consideration of design, cultural relevance, and end-user needs, not just computational resources.

Impact

This broadened the conversation significantly, moving from a narrow focus on compute resources to a holistic view of AI equity. It influenced other speakers to consider the full ecosystem of AI development and helped establish that technical solutions alone are insufficient without addressing social and cultural dimensions.

We have to come in a spirit of listening and openness and in a spirit of compromise as well… We are going to have to have a recognition of the needs of others and a recognition that we don’t always understand the needs of folks who are outside our own context in our own community.

Speaker

Alisson O’Beirne

Reason

This comment addressed the meta-challenge of how to actually achieve meaningful collaboration, acknowledging that good intentions aren’t enough and that successful partnerships require humility and genuine openness to different perspectives and needs.

Impact

This served as a crucial reality check for the entire discussion, grounding the technical and policy conversations in the practical challenges of cross-cultural and cross-sector collaboration. It provided a framework for how the proposed global alliances should actually operate.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally transformed the discussion from a relatively straightforward resource allocation problem into a complex, multi-dimensional challenge requiring systemic thinking. The conversation evolved from initial assumptions about redistribution of existing compute resources to a more sophisticated understanding that encompasses supply creation, cultural adaptation, innovation ecosystems, and collaborative governance. The most impactful insights came from reframing the problem (universal scarcity vs. just inequity), recognizing systemic barriers (self-reinforcing cycles), and identifying assets in unexpected places (Global South ingenuity). These comments collectively elevated the discussion from technical solutions to broader questions of equity, sovereignty, and sustainable development, ultimately making the case for why simple technology transfer is insufficient and why genuine partnership and systemic change are necessary.

How much compute demand do countries really need and can this be quantified?

Speaker

Ivy Lau-Schindewolf

Explanation

OpenAI has received outreach from countries asking for help quantifying their actual compute needs, indicating this is a critical gap in understanding that affects planning and resource allocation

How can we measure and address the gap between supply and demand for compute power globally?

Speaker

Ivy Lau-Schindewolf

Explanation

Even developed countries like the US are struggling with compute shortages, suggesting the problem extends beyond just inequitable distribution to overall supply constraints

What are the most effective mechanisms for ensuring fair distribution of compute resources while maintaining technical efficiency?

Speaker

Elena Estavillo Flores

Explanation

There’s a need to balance technical optimization with social fairness in compute distribution, requiring research into governance models that can achieve both goals

How can we design corrective mechanisms to address historic inequalities in compute access?

Speaker

Elena Estavillo Flores

Explanation

Historical digital divides are compounding with AI compute divides, requiring specific interventions to prevent further marginalization of already disadvantaged regions

What is the optimal balance between local compute infrastructure and remote access to compute resources?

Speaker

Fabro Steibel

Explanation

The discussion raised questions about whether countries need local compute capacity or if remote access through partnerships (like Brazil-Spain collaboration) could be sufficient

How can we better integrate private sector investment with government resources for compute infrastructure in developing countries?

Speaker

Elena Estavillo Flores

Explanation

Government resources alone are insufficient for the massive investments needed, requiring research into public-private partnership models for compute infrastructure

What are the most effective ways to cultivate local startup ecosystems and entrepreneurship around AI in the Global South?

Speaker

Ivy Lau-Schindewolf

Explanation

Access to compute infrastructure alone is insufficient without local innovation ecosystems to utilize it effectively

How can we measure and replicate the ‘ingenuity with limited resources’ innovations happening in the Global South?

Speaker

Elena Estavillo Flores

Explanation

There’s recognition that resource constraints are driving innovation in the Global South, but more research is needed on how to scale and support these approaches

What are the most effective models for multi-stakeholder governance in global compute resource allocation?

Speaker

Alisson O’Beirne

Explanation

The complexity of compute resource allocation requires bringing together diverse stakeholders, but the optimal governance structures need further development

How can we ensure AI tools are designed to reflect linguistic diversity and local community needs?

Speaker

Alisson O’Beirne

Explanation

Equitable access to compute must be coupled with equitable design of AI systems, requiring research into inclusive AI development practices

Summary

This discussion focused on C2PA (Coalition for Content Provenance and Authenticity), an open standard for content authenticity and provenance, presented by BBC Media Action and BBC R&D representatives along with international media partners. Muge Ozkaptan from BBC Media Action introduced the session, explaining how their organization supports media outlets in 30 countries with digital transformation and AI adoption, particularly through their “Pursuit of Truth” initiative supporting 30,000 media professionals and 1,000 media outlets in fragile environments.

Charlie Halford from BBC R&D explained that C2PA addresses the growing problem of disinformation by attaching cryptographic signatures to content, similar to website security certificates, allowing users to verify the origin and authenticity of media. He demonstrated how fake BBC content has been created simply by adding BBC logos and graphics to misleading information, highlighting the need for content verification technology. The BBC’s research showed that when audiences were provided with C2PA transparency data about content origins, they demonstrated significantly higher trust levels, particularly among users who weren’t regular BBC website visitors.

International perspectives came from media partners facing real-world challenges with disinformation. Khalifa Said Rashid from Tanzania’s Chanzo digital outlet described problems with brand impersonation and out-of-context video content being recycled during crisis situations. Kyrylo Lesin from Ukraine’s Suspilne public service media explained how they face aggressive disinformation campaigns, particularly since Russia’s invasion, and view C2PA as crucial for helping audiences distinguish trustworthy content from other sources.

The discussion concluded with recognition that broader adoption requires platform support, improved media literacy, and continued development of security procedures and AI content labeling capabilities.

Keypoints

**Major Discussion Points:**

– **C2PA Technology Overview and Implementation**: Charlie Halford explained C2PA (Coalition for Content Provenance and Authenticity) as an open standard that uses cryptographic signatures to verify content authenticity and origin. The BBC has been piloting this technology, attaching verification data to content to help audiences distinguish genuine news from disinformation.

– **Global Disinformation Challenges**: Multiple speakers highlighted how media organizations worldwide face brand impersonation and content manipulation. Examples included fake BBC-branded content and recycled videos taken out of context during crises, particularly affecting outlets in Tanzania and Ukraine during wartime.

– **Media Literacy and User Trust Research**: The BBC conducted studies showing that when audiences were provided with C2PA provenance data, they demonstrated significantly higher trust levels in the content, especially among users who weren’t already familiar with the BBC brand.

– **Platform Adoption and AI Content Labeling**: Discussion covered how social media platforms like TikTok are beginning to integrate C2PA standards, particularly for detecting and labeling AI-generated content from tools like OpenAI, though broader adoption across platforms remains limited.

– **Barriers to Global Implementation**: Key challenges identified include the need for device-level integration, security procedures for private key management, platform cooperation, and extensive media literacy education to help users understand and utilize provenance information effectively.

**Overall Purpose:**

The discussion aimed to present C2PA as a promising solution for combating disinformation and building content authenticity, while gathering insights from international media partners about practical implementation challenges and needs in diverse global contexts.

**Overall Tone:**

The tone was consistently optimistic and collaborative throughout. Speakers maintained an educational and forward-looking approach, acknowledging current limitations while expressing confidence in the technology’s potential. The discussion emphasized partnership and collective action rather than dwelling on problems, with participants sharing practical experiences and research findings in a constructive manner.

Speakers

– **Muge Ozkaptan** – Senior Product and AI Lead at BBC Media Action, supports country offices and media organizations for digital transformation and AI adoption with focus on responsible and ethical approaches

– **Charlie Halford** – Principal Research Engineer at BBC R&D, works on C2PA technology implementation and content authenticity solutions

– **Khalifa Said Rashid** – Editor-in-Chief of the Chanzo, a digital media platform in Tanzania focusing on public interest journalism, public accountability and investigation

– **Kyrylo Lesin** – Senior Product Manager at Suspilne (public service media from Ukraine), works on digital transformation and journalism delivery

– **Audience** – Participant asking questions during the Q&A session

**Additional speakers:**

– **Amy Mitchell** – From Center for News Technology Innovation, researcher focusing on public service aspects of news technology

# Comprehensive Discussion Report: C2PA Technology for Content Authenticity and Global Media Challenges

## Introduction and Context

This discussion centred on the Coalition for Content Provenance and Authenticity (C2PA), an open standard for content authenticity and provenance, presented by representatives from BBC Media Action and BBC R&D alongside international media partners. The session brought together diverse perspectives from global media organisations to examine how technological solutions can address the growing challenges of disinformation and content manipulation.

Muge Ozkaptan from BBC Media Action opened the session by establishing the organisation’s global reach and mission. BBC Media Action operates in 30 countries with content in 50 languages, focusing particularly on supporting media organisations in fragile environments. Ozkaptan emphasised the importance of bringing diverse voices into technology discussions, noting that “when we talk about technology generally, we talk about specification and applications, but it’s important that bringing those diverse voices and understand their actual needs, how they work, what kind of challenges that they are facing in their day-to-day life and work, and how C2PA innovation solutions like C2PA can fit in that area.”

## Technical Overview of C2PA Technology

Charlie Halford from BBC R&D provided a comprehensive explanation of C2PA technology and its implementation. As Halford explained, “C2PA itself is a standard, a technical standard. And what it does is it describes how you attach a signature, a cryptographic signature, the same kind that you might use on a website to give it that green lock.” The technology addresses the growing problem of disinformation by attaching verification data to content, allowing users to confirm the origin and authenticity of media they encounter.

Halford demonstrated the practical challenges facing media organisations by showing examples of fake BBC content. He explained that sophisticated artificial intelligence isn’t always necessary for effective disinformation: “These aren’t pieces of AI disinformation. This is just somebody with a video editor. They found the BBC logo. They found the BBC font. They know what the BBC’s graphics look like. And they’ve put out what the footage underneath them isn’t fake. They’ve just changed the message.” This observation highlighted how simple brand impersonation can be highly effective in misleading audiences who trust established media brands.

The BBC has conducted research into C2PA implementation, working with partners including IPTC for publisher certificates. The technology currently works with existing software and tools, including various cameras and content creation applications. Halford also explained the concept of “redaction” within C2PA systems, which allows for the removal of sensitive information like location and time data that could endanger subjects or photographers while maintaining content authenticity verification.

## Global Perspectives on Disinformation Challenges

### Tanzania: Brand Impersonation and Crisis Communication

Khalifa Said Rashid, Editor-in-Chief of the Chanzo, a digital media platform in Tanzania focusing on public interest journalism and accountability, provided crucial insights via recorded audio about the challenges facing media organisations in developing countries. The Chanzo struggles with brand impersonation and out-of-context video content being reshared during crisis situations, forcing them to publicly deny fake content regularly.

Rashid explained the particular vulnerability that brand trust creates: “And it have been very difficult for us to deal with a situation like that because many people trust our brand and when they see content online with our logos and brand colours, they can be very difficult for average reader to tell whether it’s real or not.” This perspective illustrated how established media brands become targets for manipulation precisely because of the trust they have built with their audiences.

### Ukraine: Wartime Disinformation and Hybrid Warfare

Kyrylo Lesin, Senior Product Manager at Suspilne, Ukraine’s public service media, brought a unique perspective shaped by operating under wartime conditions. Suspilne, established eight years ago and recognised by independent watchdog organisations for delivering trustworthy journalism, faces aggressive disinformation campaigns as part of hybrid warfare, particularly intensified since Russia’s invasion.

Lesin highlighted how disinformation campaigns affect content distribution systems: “For example, as Google discover all of these products, they operate, at some extent, as black boxes, and there are really lack of signals and parameters they can embrace to arrange the content with the most value for the end user.” This observation introduced an important dimension to the C2PA discussion—the potential for authenticity signals to influence algorithmic content distribution, helping platforms prioritise trustworthy content over manipulated material.

## Research Findings and Platform Implementation

The BBC’s research into user response to C2PA technology has involved multiple studies with different methodologies. Charlie Halford presented findings showing that users respond positively to additional transparency data, with research indicating that around 80% of users found extra data more useful, even without recognising the C2PA brand specifically. This finding was particularly significant because it suggested that the mere presence of verification information builds trust, regardless of technical literacy or brand recognition.

A separate study conducted by the University of Bergen expanded on the BBC’s research, providing additional validation of user interest in content authenticity features. However, as Amy Mitchell from the Center for News Technology Innovation pointed out, important questions remain about the distinction between user interest in authenticity features versus actual behavioural change in content consumption patterns.

Regarding platform adoption, Halford reported mixed progress. Social media platforms show positive but limited response, primarily adopting C2PA for AI-generated content labelling rather than general content verification. TikTok, for example, has begun integrating C2PA standards, particularly for detecting and labelling AI-generated content from tools like OpenAI and Microsoft, though broader adoption across platforms remains limited.

Major technology companies including Adobe, Microsoft, Google, Meta, and OpenAI are part of the C2PA coalition, and the technology works with existing software and cameras currently available. However, broader implementation faces several challenges, including the need for device-level integration, security procedures for private key management, platform cooperation, and extensive media literacy education.

## Implementation Challenges and Media Literacy

Despite the consensus on C2PA’s value, speakers identified several significant barriers to global implementation. Media literacy education emerged as a crucial requirement, with Charlie Halford noting that “you can’t just put this information in front of people and expect them to understand it so we have to use our products we have to use our journalism to explain to people what this means.”

The discussion revealed that while users respond positively to transparency data, C2PA as a brand lacks public recognition. This creates a challenge for implementation, as the technology’s effectiveness depends partly on user understanding and trust in the verification system itself.

Technical implementation challenges include the need for broader device and tool integration to make C2PA automatic rather than requiring special procedures. Media organisations also need to develop robust security procedures for managing the private keys required for C2PA implementation, ensuring the integrity and trustworthiness of the system.

## Audience Engagement and Future Development

The session included interactive elements, with audience participation facilitated through Slido Q&A system and QR codes for real-time questions. Participants raised important questions about regulatory integration, asking about plans for integrating C2PA into existing regulations for information integrity such as the EU Digital Services Act or UK Online Safety Act.

The discussion concluded with several concrete action items and future development plans. BBC Media Action committed to continuing support for global media organisations through workshops and conversations to include diverse voices in C2PA development. A pilot implementation is planned between BBC and Suspilne to integrate C2PA into end-to-end web publishing processes, providing a practical test case for the technology in a challenging operational environment.

## Ongoing Challenges and Considerations

Several significant issues remain unresolved and require continued attention. Limited social media platform adoption beyond AI content labelling represents a major challenge, as platforms show mixed response to general content verification features. The lack of public recognition of the C2PA brand itself requires significant media literacy education efforts to achieve meaningful adoption.

The challenge of scaling adoption across diverse media environments with varying technical capabilities remains substantial. Implementation needs to account for different levels of technical infrastructure and resources available to media organisations in different regions.

There are also ongoing questions about achieving broader device and tool adoption so that C2PA becomes built into cameras and content creation tools by default, making the technology seamless rather than requiring special technical knowledge from users. Additionally, the need for better AI-generated content detection and improved reliability of AI labelling in C2PA was acknowledged, as current AI detection methods are not completely reliable.

## Conclusion

The discussion demonstrated strong consensus among diverse stakeholders about the value of C2PA technology for addressing global challenges in content authenticity and disinformation. The perspectives from media organisations operating in different contexts—from the BBC’s established presence to the Chanzo’s work in Tanzania to Suspilne’s wartime operations—illustrated both universal challenges and context-specific needs.

The conversation successfully balanced technical capabilities with practical implementation concerns, emphasising that successful C2PA adoption requires not just technical standards but also media literacy education, platform cooperation, and understanding of diverse global media environments. The planned pilot implementations and continued research efforts indicate positive momentum towards broader adoption of content authenticity standards in the global media landscape.

Muge Ozkaptan: Let me see who is here. Hello everyone, I’m Muge Ozkaptan, Senior Product and AI Lead at BBC Media Action. And I support our country offices and media organisations for their digital transformation and AI adoption, especially for responsible and ethical point of view. We also support the innovation solutions including C2PA, being sure that it’s scalable, practical and impactful. So I’d like to introduce my colleagues from the BBC, Charlie Halford, which is Principal Research Engineer at the BBC R&D, and we have Krylo Iesin, he’s a Senior Product Manager, and we also have Khalifa Said Rashid, who is Editor-in-Chief from the Chanso, the Chanso is a digital outlet in Tanzania. He couldn’t come here today, but he’s attending through a recorded audio, and we will hear from him about his thoughts about C2PA. I’d like to talk about BBC Media Action a little bit, and then BBC Media Action’s approach on C2PA, and then I will hand over to Charlie, and then Charlie will talk about what is C2PA in detail and in action, and how the BBC is using it. And then we will hear from our media partners, Suspine and the Chanso, about their reflections and needs around C2PA. We will have some Q&A at the end, but if you’d like to join online, we have Slido, so you can see the QR code on the screen, and also you can type 3710912 for your questions, or you can ask it directly here. So BBC Media Action is BBC’s international charity, we work in 30 countries, and co-create content in 50 languages. We are fully funded by donors and our supporters. We are a front line of the global challenges like disinformation, and also declassification and violating public trust. We support media organisations, media professionals to enhance their abilities, make them more strengthened, resilient for fragile environments. And we believe that C2PA is a very crucial, very important development in the open standards, and we are really interested in being part of these global conversations from now on. And C2PA is an open standard for content authenticity and prominence, offers one promising approach to help audiences verify where the content comes from and how or where it’s altered. We believe that including the voices from the global majority to make these standards more applicable and relevant to the global audience. When we talk about technology generally, we talk about specification and applications, but it’s important that bringing those diverse voices and understand their actual needs, how they work, what kind of challenges that they are facing in their day-to-day life and work, and how C2PA innovation solutions like C2PA can fit in that area. So this is where we are focusing on. And at BBC Media Action, we launched an initiative called Pursuit of Truth. We are supporting a cohort of 30,000 media professionals and 1,000 vital media outlets, especially work and serve audiences in fragile environments. And as part of this commitment, we want to provide tools, technology, and innovation solutions for them to gather the facts and deal with the external pressures and give a platform to diverse voices. And C2PA is sitting perfectly in that branch, including other open standards in that field. And also draw on world-class expertise and innovation to advance the ethical use of AI and content verification in media around the world. And we are also providing a big commitment to supporting research to understand how this information spreads and how to respond it more effectively. So I want to hand over to Charlie. So Charlie, what is C2PA in action and how the BBC is using it?

Charlie Halford: Thank you very much. Hello, everybody. Yes, I’m Charlie, as Miguel has let you all know by now. So yeah, I’m just going to take you through what C2PA is, how we’re using it at the BBC, and how we’d love to see C2PA adopted, I guess, around the world and across the media ecosystem. And some of the challenges that we see in that area and how maybe we can all work together to make it work. So let’s first start with part of our problem. So these are three examples of disinformation that have had the BBC logo attached to them. These aren’t pieces of AI disinformation. This is just somebody with a video editor. They found the BBC logo. They found the BBC font. They know what the BBC’s graphics look like. And they’ve put out what the footage underneath them isn’t fake. They’ve just changed the message. They’ve changed the message. They’ve put something on there that the BBC hasn’t published. And so this kind of problem is the one that we really wanted to address with C2PA. So when the origin of content is really hidden, maybe on a social media platform, all content can look the same. You might think all content is equally trustworthy. So in this world of disinformation, as a group of media organizations and other people across the world, how can our commitment to accuracy make a difference? So that was one of the problems that we tried to think about when we were looking at creating a new technology in BBC research and development. So what are some of the others? So answering this question, is the media I see genuine or authentic is the general thing we’re trying to solve. So we know that there’s no real way to securely understand what or who created a piece of content. The existing metadata that we have, which can be really useful, is very easily faked. Anybody can add to it. Anybody can manipulate it. The media itself, as we just saw, is very easily manipulated, and there’s no guarantee that it’s original. And there’s no clear way, if you wanted to see it, to understand the journey of that content. What’s happened to it when it’s left the camera? Who’s changed it? Who’s added what? Who’s modified what? And so C2PA was really created to address some of those problems. These are some of the people that were involved, and it’s really grown to be a pretty huge coalition at this point. So you can see along the top there, I’ve included some of the tech companies and product organizations in there. So Adobe are a huge driver in this, but so are Microsoft, Google, Meta, OpenAI, Sony, all part of the C2PA board. And then I’ve added some of the news organizations that are getting involved, because this problem is one that we’re really trying to solve. So WDR, BBC, CBC, Radio Canada, AFP, France TV. Many people are involved in this process. There’s many more on that list that I’ve not added. So I just wanted to do a…before I get into this in detail, understand how many people in our audience here are sort of technical, have a technical background? Yeah, got a few people there. So C2PA itself is a standard, a technical standard. And what it does is it describes how you attach a signature, a cryptographic signature, the same kind that you might use on a website to give it that green lock. How you attach that cryptographic signature to a piece of content. So it goes inside a file and binds to the image or the video or the audio to let you understand where that piece of content has come from. So we use a hash to link it to the video and the audio, and we then use a signature across that. So when we started working on this, we tried to understand, we wanted to ask our users if this kind of thing makes sense. makes an actual difference. And so we’ve run a few studies. There’s recently been one run, I think, by the University of Bergen that’s expanded on this. But when we did it, we asked people, we gave them two sets of content, the same kind of content, and then one had no provenance on it, the other one had this C2PA data on it, and we said, do you trust, what’s your level of trust in each of these pieces of content? And the significant one there was that when we added extra transparency data, when we told people where this stuff had come from, they were more inclined to trust that content. And the important thing for other media organizations here is it was the people that didn’t use our website already that were the most affected by that. And so we then ran a trial. So this is a piece of content. We ran, that came into our verification team, BBC Verify. They then did manual verification checks. And what we wanted to do is take the output of their verification checks and add it into the content, so attach it to the content, and then we showed that to our audiences. We did that with about five pieces of content as our trial. Gives you much more detail when you click that blue button to expand it. And we did the same thing. We asked people if they would find it more trustworthy, and they came back about, I think it was about 80% of the people said they found that piece of content, that extra data more useful, and it added more trust to the story. And then what we’ve also been doing is working with an organization called the IPTC to establish a way for publishers to get a certificate that proves who they are, so that people can’t impersonate you. So the BBC or AFP, in this example, gets a certificate from GlobalSign. They send it to the IPTC, and then we add that to a list of not trusted organizations. It’s actually just verified organizations, organizations whose identity has been verified. So if you wanted to know how can you use it now, all of these pieces of software, and in some cases cameras, are available right now to make use of it. So if any of these are in use by you today, I’d encourage you to go and check them out. More are being developed. And with that, who are we handing to first?

Muge Ozkaptan: Yeah. We’ve been close to working with the BBC since last year, and we included the diverse voices from our partners to the workshops and the global conversations. And we want to show you one of the talks from the Chanzo Editor-in-Chief Khalifa Said Rashid is sharing with us about his challenges in Tanzania around mis-disinformation and how the C2PA is relevant to his work.

Khalifa Said Rashid: Hello. My name is Khalifa Said Rashid. I am the Editor-in-Chief of the Chanzo. The Chanzo is a digital media platform based here in Jerusalem, Tanzania, focusing on public interest journalism and public accountability and investigation. The major problem that we face here in Tanzania with regard to misinformation and disinformation includes but not limited to impersonification of brands, a phenomenon that have affected many media outlets here in Tanzania, including the Chanzo, where we have been forced on numerous accounts to come to public and deny the content that have been shared on social media platform, impersonating our brands. And it have been very difficult for us to deal with a situation like that because many people trust our brand and when they see content online with our logos and brand colors, they can be very difficult for average reader to tell whether it’s real or not. But another types of disinformation or misinformation is we have seen, especially during the time of crisis, for example, all the video taken out of context resurfaced on social media, purported to be about the events that are happening during that week or day. And we have been battling with these problems where you have multiple media outlets in Tanzania, which have produced a number of content, it may be two or three years ago, but they are not dated. And when, if for example, they are related to demonstrations or protest, and if there is a protest on that day, this video resurfaces on social media, purporting it to be happening on that day. And so in this context, we are very optimistic that a technology like C2PA offers such a huge potential for us as editors and journalists to counter misinformation and disinformation because it allows the user to tell if the content is real or not because the technology allows media content in partnership with the platforms like Twitter, and now Facebook and others to sign their content that allows users to tell that this is really from the chance or this is really from this particular media outlet and not an impersonation. And of course, we are also happy to work with the BBC Media Action, which is helping us better understand this technology and apply it in our day-to-day operations. Thank you, but goodbye.

Muge Ozkaptan: Well, thank you, Khalifa. I want to turn to you, Krylo. And can you talk about Suspilne a little bit? Who is Suspilne and what do you do? And what are your challenges? And then what do you think about C2PA in your day-to-day work? Why is it relevant to you?

Kyrylo Lesin: Yeah, thank you, Mirko. Hello, everyone. So I represent Suspilne. This is public service media from Ukraine. It was established as an independent media institution eight years ago. And since that time, specifically five years ago, we started intense digital transformation. And there are a lot of outputs of this process, like organizational, content-wise, and BBC Media Action and other partners invest a lot of their time and resources to support us on this journey. And specifically, five years ago, our flagship digital news platform was launched. It is called Suspilne.media, and you can access it through any browser. And using this platform and our other digital channels, we deliver high-quality journalism. What does it mean? So we recognize our main mission is to empower citizens’ decision-making by providing them with high-quality journalism. And our output is recognized by independent watchdog organization as one of the most trustworthy journalistic products, meaning that we totally adhere to journalistic standards. And operating in Ukrainian media context and global context, we encountered, obviously, really aggressive competition for the attention of our audiences. And specifically, now we’re countering hybrid warfare and disinformation that has been identified severely since the full-scale Russia invasion to Ukraine. Also, it’s affected the operational conditions, both for audience and for media. For example, only this night, Russia launched more than 370 drones and missiles in total. So also, another take of media sphere that get us tackling these challenges is the rise of AI-supporting, AI-powered systems. Also, algorithmic-based newsfeeds. For example, as Google discover all of these products, they operate, at some extent, as black boxes, and there are really lack of signals and parameters they can embrace to arrange the content with the most value for the end user. And talking about C2P technology and the pilot we would like to run with the BBC and the process that now leading by Charlie is to get this technology incorporated into the end-to-end process of web publishing so we can provide our audience with at least one additional mean to draw a distinctive line between the trustworthy content and kind of other content. So the value is huge, and it might sound boring when it comes to C2P. recognized as some standard but in general for APBC we recognize it as the innovation vibe so some piece of code can just dramatically change the way content appears into the screens of our end users and they can end up with a change in their behavior recognizing the high quality content and you know put the preferences on that compared to to some other resources so yeah this is a value.

Muge Ozkaptan: Thank you so much and Charlie I want to ask you where do you see this technology is going next and how actually we can make it broader adoption especially by the global majority

Charlie Halford: okay hopefully where we will see the technology going next is expansion in where it’s being used so we’re really hoping that we’re going to see more media organizations using it we’re really hoping to be to be able to put a pilot in place with the Spillner that would be fantastic there’s lots of other people that are involved we’d also love to see more support from platforms social media platforms I think most media organizations get a lot of their traffic of the lots of their audiences come via me social media platforms that might be tick-tock it might be YouTube it might be Facebook lots of them and then there’s also a few other considerations I guess to help us get that broader adoption so there’s a concept called redaction in C2PA so that’s the idea that you want to show people as much information as possible right to help them make a decision about is this trustworthy but sometimes that information can hurt people maybe it could hurt the subject of the photo maybe it could hurt the the person taking it so location and date and time so having the ability to remove those things where somebody might be put at risk is really important that’s redaction so we need to see that implemented we’ve got device and tool adoption so we can’t we need to get to a place where it’s possible for any organization or any person taking a picture with their camera that it’s just built in they don’t need to do anything special I think that’s starting to happen but we need that to roll out more we also need if you’re going to be part of this as a media organization you need to be able to look after your private key that’s the thing that’s going to be really important to you so developing security procedures we’ve talked about platforms pilots so I think really it’s about finding the right use case what’s the best the best thing that helps you out maybe it’s showing users on your platform more detail about your content maybe it’s telling people on social media that this is really from you from you another one is considering how content comes into your organization if lots of people send you images maybe images and videos from users being able to detect maybe whether they are genuine is really important so do that at that point and then media literacy is probably one of the the biggest ones on this list helping your users understand what all of this means you can’t just put this information in front of people and expect them to understand it so we have to use our products we have to use our journalism to explain to me people what what this means and thank you very much and how c2p works for AI generated content okay so on AI generated content a few organizations now so open AI and Microsoft are actually putting AI labels into their content and they’re using c2p a and so if you click through to the next slide I think if some social media companies are now using that so if you click through again this is an example of tick-tock and where they detect and a c2p a AI label they actually let users know and we’re hoping this will become more broadly adopted as we go forward if you click yet so that’s just the AI label and then I think this next one just a little video so if you click play on that so this is a prototype that we’re working on and so here I’ve added an AI image and I’m just in the background I’m inspecting the c2p a label and because it was produced by one of those tools you can see that that’s been AI generated they’re not bulletproof at the moment we still need to use other techniques to detect whether something’s AI generated but this is a good first start at that

Muge Ozkaptan: thank you very much we have some time for questions and please fire up and we like to hear from you your thoughts and any experiences any challenges that you’re facing and do you think c2p a is important to you so please go in and I’m also checking slider if anything comes up on online just a second I think there is a question from from there this is

Audience: great and I’m such a I’m a big supporter of the c2p a but I wanted to ask a couple questions on the public side of it in terms of the public response and recognition of it I’m Amy Mitchell with Center for news technology innovation and look a lot at sort of how do we think about really public service in these kinds of things and there can be value in internal kinds of signals that maybe aren’t meant for public facing purposes but in the space where you’re looking to really have the public benefit and understand the integrity in your research and tests have you seen them wreck it you know recognize the sig the sign the print the content label that’s on there and respond positively in choice or is it more at this point about interest in it you know interest in having something like that be a sign I’d be I’d be curious Charlie would

Charlie Halford: like yeah sure thank you that’s a yeah that’s a really good question so when we the research I showed there we we showed people without any any extra data and we showed them with it with the extra data we showed them a like a c2p a logo we didn’t get any comments back about any recognition yet so as a brand I don’t think the c2p a has much public recognition so I think in terms of media literacy that’s a job for us to do but in terms of us giving them the extra data that was a big trust indicator so that that had a direct impact not just on interest but on how trustworthy people found the content itself

Muge Ozkaptan: Thank you we have a question on slider is there any plan to integrate c2p a to existing regulations for information integrity such as EU DSA or online safety act of the UK

Charlie Halford: so I I guess there there’s it’s been looked at by many different organizations many regulatory bodies around the world I’m not sure if it has been named directly in any of them but there’s quite a lot of regulation that’s starting to come out that’s talking about the need to label things particularly from an AI perspective so you’re getting a lot more AI labeling requirements whether we would ever push to get c2p a as a technology embedded into legislation I’m not sure I it might be it might be useful to get some movement but then if there’s standard changes at a later date maybe we’d want some flexibility but the idea of provenance the idea of labeling I think would be really great.

Muge Ozkaptan: I think we have time for one more question if you want to ask any from the room I just want to ask last question about the social media platforms how they’re adopting so far and what’s the response in detail.

Charlie Halford: so I think the response has been mixed but positive so most of the adoption we see are in social media platforms using c2p a to understand whether something has been labeled as AI they’re most interested in that in that situation we’ve seen less adoption for people interested in labeling things as from the BBC from sys bilna or maybe showing you more detail about your media but we’re hopeful that the more content we see the more we publish the more social media organizations will start to adopt and really it’s it’s for us to request that of those platforms I think

Muge Ozkaptan: well thank you so much we are at the end of session now but if you’re interested investing into this standards and if you want to have questions or sharing ideas they’re just here and just come and then join to a conversation thank you very much thank you

Agreement points

Brand impersonation is a major challenge for media organizations

Speakers

– Charlie Halford
– Khalifa Said Rashid

Arguments

BBC faces impersonation problems where fake content uses BBC logos and branding, making it difficult for audiences to distinguish authentic content

The Chanzo in Tanzania struggles with brand impersonation and out-of-context video content being reshared during crisis situations, forcing them to publicly deny fake content

Summary

Both BBC and The Chanzo face significant challenges with their brands being impersonated through fake content using their logos and visual branding, creating confusion for audiences who trust these brands

Topics

Content policy | Intellectual property rights | Liability of intermediaries

C2PA technology offers valuable solutions for content authenticity verification

Speakers

– Charlie Halford
– Khalifa Said Rashid
– Kyrylo Lesin

Arguments

C2PA is an open standard that uses cryptographic signatures to verify content authenticity and provenance, addressing problems where media can be easily manipulated or impersonated

The Chanzo in Tanzania struggles with brand impersonation and out-of-context video content being reshared during crisis situations, forcing them to publicly deny fake content

Suspilne in Ukraine faces aggressive disinformation campaigns as part of hybrid warfare, particularly intensified since the Russian invasion

Summary

All speakers recognize C2PA as a promising technology solution that can help media organizations verify content authenticity and combat disinformation challenges they face in their respective contexts

Topics

Digital standards | Content policy | Cyberconflict and warfare

Media organizations need support for digital transformation and capacity building

Speakers

– Muge Ozkaptan
– Kyrylo Lesin

Arguments

The organization supports 30,000 media professionals and 1,000 media outlets, providing tools and technology to deal with external pressures and gather facts

Suspilne is Ukraine’s public service media established eight years ago, focusing on digital transformation and delivering trustworthy journalism recognized by independent watchdog organizations

Summary

Both speakers emphasize the importance of supporting media organizations through digital transformation initiatives, providing tools and technology to enhance their capabilities

Topics

Capacity development | Digital business models | Online education

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize the critical importance of education and capacity building – Charlie focuses on media literacy for users to understand C2PA technology, while Muge focuses on supporting media organizations globally with tools and knowledge

Speakers

– Charlie Halford
– Muge Ozkaptan

Arguments

Media literacy education is crucial for helping users understand what C2PA information means, as the technology itself doesn’t have much public recognition yet

BBC Media Action works in 30 countries with content in 50 languages, focusing on supporting media organizations in fragile environments through their ‘Pursuit of Truth’ initiative

Topics

Online education | Content policy | Capacity development

Both media organizations operate in challenging environments where they face sophisticated disinformation campaigns that threaten their credibility and require active countermeasures

Speakers

– Khalifa Said Rashid
– Kyrylo Lesin

Arguments

The Chanzo in Tanzania struggles with brand impersonation and out-of-context video content being reshared during crisis situations, forcing them to publicly deny fake content

Suspilne in Ukraine faces aggressive disinformation campaigns as part of hybrid warfare, particularly intensified since the Russian invasion

Topics

Content policy | Freedom of the press | Cyberconflict and warfare

Unexpected consensus

User trust increases with transparency even without brand recognition

Speakers

– Charlie Halford
– Audience

Arguments

BBC has conducted trials showing that content with C2PA provenance data increases user trust by about 80%, particularly among users who don’t regularly use BBC’s website

Research shows public interest in content integrity signals, with users responding positively to additional transparency data even without recognizing the C2PA brand specifically

Explanation

It’s somewhat unexpected that users would respond so positively to technical transparency data (C2PA provenance information) even when they don’t recognize or understand the specific technology brand. This suggests that the mere presence of additional verification information builds trust, regardless of technical literacy

Topics

Consumer protection | Online education | Content policy

Global media challenges are remarkably similar across different contexts

Speakers

– Charlie Halford
– Khalifa Said Rashid
– Kyrylo Lesin

Arguments

BBC faces impersonation problems where fake content uses BBC logos and branding, making it difficult for audiences to distinguish authentic content

The Chanzo in Tanzania struggles with brand impersonation and out-of-context video content being reshared during crisis situations, forcing them to publicly deny fake content

Suspilne in Ukraine faces aggressive disinformation campaigns as part of hybrid warfare, particularly intensified since the Russian invasion

Explanation

Despite operating in vastly different contexts (UK public broadcaster, Tanzanian digital outlet, Ukrainian public media during wartime), all three organizations face remarkably similar challenges with brand impersonation and content manipulation, suggesting these are universal problems in the digital media landscape

Topics

Content policy | Freedom of the press | Digital standards

Overall assessment

Summary

There is strong consensus among all speakers that content authenticity and brand impersonation are critical challenges facing media organizations globally, and that C2PA technology offers a promising solution. All speakers agree on the need for capacity building, education, and technological solutions to combat disinformation.

Consensus level

High level of consensus with no significant disagreements identified. The implications are positive for C2PA adoption, as there appears to be unified support from diverse stakeholders (technology developers, international media development organizations, and media outlets from different regions). This consensus suggests strong potential for collaborative implementation and scaling of the technology across different contexts and regions.

Different viewpoints

Platform adoption priorities and effectiveness

Speakers

– Charlie Halford
– Kyrylo Lesin

Arguments

Social media platforms show mixed but positive response, primarily adopting C2PA for AI-generated content labeling rather than general content verification

Suspilne in Ukraine faces aggressive disinformation campaigns as part of hybrid warfare, particularly intensified since the Russian invasion

Summary

Charlie presents a measured view of platform adoption focusing on AI content labeling, while Kyrylo emphasizes the urgent need for broader content verification tools due to wartime disinformation challenges. Their perspectives differ on the adequacy of current platform responses.

Topics

Content policy | Liability of intermediaries | Cyberconflict and warfare

Unexpected differences

Public readiness versus technology deployment

Speakers

– Charlie Halford
– Audience

Arguments

Media literacy education is crucial for helping users understand what C2PA information means, as the technology itself doesn’t have much public recognition yet

Research shows public interest in content integrity signals, with users responding positively to additional transparency data even without recognizing the C2PA brand specifically

Explanation

While both acknowledge positive user response to transparency data, there’s an unexpected tension between Charlie’s emphasis on the need for extensive media literacy education and the audience member’s research suggesting users already respond positively without brand recognition. This reveals disagreement about whether public education should precede or accompany technology deployment.

Topics

Online education | Consumer protection | Content policy

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion shows minimal direct disagreement, with most differences stemming from varying operational contexts rather than fundamental philosophical disputes about C2PA technology

Disagreement level

Low level of disagreement with high consensus on C2PA’s value. The main tensions relate to implementation priorities, urgency levels, and sequencing of education versus deployment. This suggests strong foundational agreement that should facilitate collaborative implementation, though coordination may be needed to address different regional and operational priorities.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize the critical importance of education and capacity building – Charlie focuses on media literacy for users to understand C2PA technology, while Muge focuses on supporting media organizations globally with tools and knowledge

Speakers

– Charlie Halford
– Muge Ozkaptan

Arguments

Media literacy education is crucial for helping users understand what C2PA information means, as the technology itself doesn’t have much public recognition yet

BBC Media Action works in 30 countries with content in 50 languages, focusing on supporting media organizations in fragile environments through their ‘Pursuit of Truth’ initiative

Topics

Online education | Content policy | Capacity development

Both media organizations operate in challenging environments where they face sophisticated disinformation campaigns that threaten their credibility and require active countermeasures

Speakers

– Khalifa Said Rashid
– Kyrylo Lesin

Arguments

The Chanzo in Tanzania struggles with brand impersonation and out-of-context video content being reshared during crisis situations, forcing them to publicly deny fake content

Suspilne in Ukraine faces aggressive disinformation campaigns as part of hybrid warfare, particularly intensified since the Russian invasion

Topics

Content policy | Freedom of the press | Cyberconflict and warfare

Key takeaways

C2PA is a promising open standard for content authenticity that uses cryptographic signatures to verify media provenance and combat disinformation

Research demonstrates that C2PA significantly increases user trust in content, with 80% of users finding provenance data more useful and trustworthy

Media organizations globally face similar challenges with brand impersonation and content manipulation, from BBC’s logo misuse to Tanzania’s Chanzo dealing with fake branded content

The technology is currently available and being implemented by major tech companies, but broader adoption requires coordinated effort across platforms, devices, and organizations

Media literacy education is crucial for public understanding and adoption, as users respond positively to transparency data even without recognizing the C2PA brand

C2PA shows particular promise for AI-generated content labeling, with platforms like TikTok already implementing detection and labeling systems

Resolutions and action items

BBC Media Action will continue supporting global media organizations through workshops and conversations to include diverse voices in C2PA development

A pilot implementation is planned between BBC and Suspilne to integrate C2PA into end-to-end web publishing processes

Media organizations need to develop security procedures for managing private keys required for C2PA implementation

Continued research and user studies are needed to understand public response and optimize implementation strategies

Unresolved issues

Limited social media platform adoption beyond AI content labeling – platforms show mixed response to general content verification features

Lack of public recognition of the C2PA brand itself, requiring significant media literacy education efforts

Need for broader device and tool integration to make C2PA automatic rather than requiring special procedures

Implementation of redaction capabilities to protect sensitive information while maintaining transparency

Uncertainty about regulatory integration with existing information integrity laws like EU DSA or UK Online Safety Act

Challenge of scaling adoption across the global majority and diverse media environments with varying technical capabilities

Suggested compromises

Flexible approach to regulatory integration that allows for standard changes while promoting provenance labeling requirements

Gradual implementation starting with specific use cases (like AI content labeling) before expanding to general content verification

Balancing transparency with safety through redaction capabilities that can hide sensitive location, date, or personal information when needed

When we talk about technology generally, we talk about specification and applications, but it’s important that bringing those diverse voices and understand their actual needs, how they work, what kind of challenges that they are facing in their day-to-day life and work, and how C2PA innovation solutions like C2PA can fit in that area.

Speaker

Muge Ozkaptan

Reason

This comment is insightful because it highlights a critical gap in technology development – the tendency to focus on technical specifications without adequately considering the real-world needs of diverse global users. It challenges the typical tech-centric approach and emphasizes the importance of inclusive design.

Impact

This comment set the foundational framework for the entire discussion, establishing that the session would prioritize voices from the global majority rather than just technical implementation. It directly led to featuring perspectives from Tanzania and Ukraine, demonstrating practical challenges in different contexts.

These aren’t pieces of AI disinformation. This is just somebody with a video editor. They found the BBC logo. They found the BBC font. They know what the BBC’s graphics look like. And they’ve put out what the footage underneath them isn’t fake. They’ve just changed the message.

Speaker

Charlie Halford

Reason

This observation is thought-provoking because it reframes the disinformation problem beyond AI-generated content to include simple brand impersonation. It demonstrates that sophisticated AI isn’t always necessary for effective disinformation, making the problem more accessible and widespread.

Impact

This comment shifted the discussion from focusing solely on AI-generated content to broader authenticity challenges. It provided concrete context that resonated with the media partners’ experiences, particularly Khalifa’s later description of brand impersonation issues in Tanzania.

And it have been very difficult for us to deal with a situation like that because many people trust our brand and when they see content online with our logos and brand colors, they can be very difficult for average reader to tell whether it’s real or not.

Speaker

Khalifa Said Rashid

Reason

This comment is particularly insightful because it illustrates how brand trust, typically an asset, becomes a vulnerability in the disinformation landscape. It shows the real-world impact on media organizations in developing countries where resources for combating impersonation may be limited.

Impact

This comment provided crucial validation for the C2PA initiative by demonstrating actual harm experienced by media organizations. It moved the discussion from theoretical benefits to concrete use cases, strengthening the argument for C2PA adoption.

For example, as Google discover all of these products, they operate, at some extent, as black boxes, and there are really lack of signals and parameters they can embrace to arrange the content with the most value for the end user.

Speaker

Kyrylo Lesin

Reason

This comment is thought-provoking because it identifies a systemic problem with algorithmic content distribution – the lack of quality signals that algorithms can use to prioritize trustworthy content. It suggests that C2PA could serve as a quality signal in algorithmic systems.

Impact

This comment expanded the discussion beyond direct user verification to consider how C2PA could influence content distribution algorithms. It introduced a new dimension of impact – not just helping users identify trustworthy content, but potentially helping platforms prioritize it.

You can’t just put this information in front of people and expect them to understand it so we have to use our products we have to use our journalism to explain to people what this means.

Speaker

Charlie Halford

Reason

This comment is insightful because it acknowledges that technical solutions alone are insufficient – they require accompanying education and communication strategies. It recognizes the responsibility of media organizations to bridge the gap between technical capability and user understanding.

Impact

This comment introduced the critical element of media literacy as essential for C2PA success. It shifted the conversation from technical implementation to user education, highlighting that adoption requires both technological and educational components.

In the space where you’re looking to really have the public benefit and understand the integrity in your research and tests have you seen them recognize the sign the print the content label that’s on there and respond positively in choice or is it more at this point about interest in it?

Speaker

Amy Mitchell (Audience)

Reason

This question is thought-provoking because it challenges the distinction between user interest in authenticity features versus actual behavioral change. It probes whether C2PA creates measurable impact on user decision-making or remains at the level of expressed preference.

Impact

This question prompted important clarification about the current state of C2PA recognition and effectiveness. It revealed that while users respond positively to additional transparency data, C2PA as a brand lacks public recognition, highlighting the need for better communication strategies.

Overall assessment

These key comments collectively shaped the discussion by establishing a human-centered rather than technology-centered approach to C2PA adoption. The conversation evolved from technical specifications to real-world applications, then to implementation challenges, and finally to the critical importance of user education and platform adoption. The diverse perspectives from different global contexts (UK, Tanzania, Ukraine) demonstrated both universal challenges (brand impersonation, content authenticity) and context-specific needs (operating under warfare conditions, resource constraints). The discussion successfully balanced technical capabilities with practical implementation concerns, ultimately emphasizing that successful C2PA adoption requires not just technical standards but also media literacy, platform cooperation, and understanding of diverse global media environments.

How can we achieve broader adoption of C2PA, especially by the global majority?

Speaker

Muge Ozkaptan

Explanation

This addresses the need to expand C2PA implementation beyond current adopters to include more diverse global voices and organizations, particularly those in fragile environments and developing countries

How do we get more support from social media platforms for C2PA implementation?

Speaker

Charlie Halford

Explanation

Platform adoption is crucial since most media organizations get significant traffic through social media, and broader platform support would increase the technology’s effectiveness

How can we improve public recognition and understanding of C2PA branding and signaling?

Speaker

Amy Mitchell (audience member)

Explanation

Research showed that while extra data increased trust, there was no recognition of C2PA as a brand, indicating a need for better public awareness and media literacy efforts

What are the plans for integrating C2PA into existing regulations for information integrity such as EU DSA or UK Online Safety Act?

Speaker

Online participant (via Slido)

Explanation

Understanding regulatory integration could help accelerate adoption and provide legal framework support for the technology

How can we implement redaction capabilities in C2PA to protect people who might be at risk?

Speaker

Charlie Halford

Explanation

This addresses the need to balance transparency with safety, allowing removal of sensitive information like location and time data that could endanger subjects or photographers

How can we develop better security procedures for media organizations to manage their private keys?

Speaker

Charlie Halford

Explanation

Private key management is critical for maintaining the integrity and trustworthiness of the C2PA system for media organizations

How can we achieve device and tool adoption so C2PA is built into cameras and content creation tools by default?

Speaker

Charlie Halford

Explanation

Seamless integration into content creation workflows is essential for widespread adoption without requiring special technical knowledge from users

How can we better detect AI-generated content and improve the reliability of AI labeling in C2PA?

Speaker

Charlie Halford

Explanation

Current AI detection methods are not bulletproof, and improving these capabilities is crucial as AI-generated content becomes more sophisticated

How can we develop effective media literacy programs to help users understand what C2PA information means?

Speaker

Charlie Halford

Explanation

Simply providing technical information isn’t enough; users need education to understand and effectively use provenance data for decision-making

Summary

This workshop at the Internet Governance Forum focused on DNS trust and safeguarding digital identity, examining two key challenges: blockchain identifiers integration with DNS and online harm mitigation. The session was jointly organized by the Dynamic Coalition on DNS Issues and the Dynamic Coalition on Data and Trust, with discussions framed around UN Sustainable Development Goal 9 regarding resilient infrastructure and innovation.

The first topic addressed blockchain identifiers and their responsible integration with the existing DNS system. Speakers emphasized that while blockchain technologies offer potential benefits for digital identity, they present significant challenges including name collisions, governance issues, and threats to the single authoritative root principle that underpins DNS stability. Research revealed actual collisions between blockchain identifiers and existing domain names, with some blockchain providers creating top-level identifiers that conflict with established gTLDs and ccTLDs. Panelists stressed the importance of responsible integration rather than replacement of DNS, advocating for multi-stakeholder collaboration to develop standards and best practices that preserve DNS security while enabling innovation.

The second discussion focused on online harm mitigation, particularly addressing scams, fraud, and DNS abuse. Speakers shared various approaches, including Norway’s .no registry model that requires identity verification and limits domain registrations per holder, which has proven effective in reducing abuse. The Global Signal Exchange was presented as a new initiative to improve threat intelligence sharing across sectors, processing hundreds of millions of threat signals to enable faster response times. Multiple panelists emphasized that combating online harms requires coordinated action across the entire internet infrastructure stack, from registries and registrars to hosting providers and content platforms. The discussion concluded with recognition that these challenges require ongoing multi-stakeholder engagement and innovative approaches to maintain trust in digital infrastructure while supporting legitimate innovation.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Blockchain Integration with DNS Systems**: The panel extensively discussed the challenges and opportunities of integrating blockchain-based naming systems with the traditional DNS infrastructure. Key concerns included name collisions between blockchain identifiers and existing domain names, the need for responsible integration rather than replacement of DNS, and maintaining the single authoritative root principle that ensures DNS stability.

– **Multi-stakeholder Governance and Coordination**: A recurring theme was the critical need for multi-stakeholder engagement to address both blockchain integration and online harm mitigation. Speakers emphasized that no single entity – whether government, private sector, or civil society – can solve these complex issues alone, and that established forums like ICANN and IGF provide essential venues for this coordination.

– **Online Harm Mitigation and DNS Abuse**: The discussion covered various forms of DNS abuse including phishing, malware, spam, domain spoofing, and cyber-squatting. Panelists shared different approaches to combating these harms, from Norway’s strict identity verification requirements for .no domains to Meta’s efforts to combat brand impersonation and the Global Signal Exchange’s cross-sector threat intelligence sharing platform.

– **Data Sharing and Real-time Threat Detection**: Multiple speakers highlighted the importance of improved data sharing mechanisms for combating online fraud and scams. The discussion covered initiatives like the Global Signal Exchange’s “Quick Factors” (quantity, immediacy, quality) approach and the need for faster mitigation times, currently averaging four days from detection to action.

– **Technical Standards and Best Practices**: The conversation addressed the need for developing technical standards for responsible DNS integration with blockchain systems, including work being done in IETF working groups, and the importance of maintaining DNS security through existing mechanisms like DNSSEC while considering future enhancements.

## Overall Purpose:

The workshop aimed to examine how the Domain Name System needs to evolve to address emerging challenges in digital trust and identity, specifically focusing on blockchain identifier integration and multi-stakeholder approaches to fighting online harms including scams and fraud. The session was designed to initiate multi-stakeholder conversations on these complex issues in the context of the WSIS+20 review and UN Sustainable Development Goal 9 (building resilient infrastructure and fostering innovation).

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a collaborative and constructive tone throughout, with participants demonstrating technical expertise while acknowledging the complexity of the challenges. The atmosphere was professional and solution-oriented, with speakers building on each other’s points rather than engaging in adversarial debate. There was a sense of urgency about addressing these issues, particularly around online harms, but also recognition that sustainable solutions require careful coordination and responsible implementation. The tone remained consistently focused on finding practical, multi-stakeholder approaches to these technical and policy challenges.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Emily Taylor** – CEO of Oxford Information Labs and co-founder of the Global Signal Exchange

– **Keith Drazek** – Vice President, Policy and Government Relations at Verisign (session moderator)

– **Benoit Ampeau** – Director of partnerships and innovation at AFNIC, the French internet registry

– **Swapneel Sheth** – Senior director of research engineering at Verisign in the office of the chief technology officer

– **Hilde Thunem** – Managing director of NORID, the Norwegian ccTLD registry (.no)

– **Lucien Taylor** – CTO and founder of the Global Signal Exchange, a global clearinghouse for real-time sharing of scam and fraud signals

– **Rima Amin** – Security policy manager, community protection with Meta

– **Graeme Bunton** – Executive director, NetBeacon Institute (participated online)

– **Edmund Chung** – From .Asia

– **Andrew Campling** – From 419 consultancy

– **Bertrand Lachapelle** – Executive Director of the Internet and Jurisdiction Policy Network

– **Participant** – (Role/title not specified – appears to be Dr. Esther Yarmitsky based on context)

– **Audience** – Individual from Senegal named Yuv (role/title not specified)

**Additional speakers:**

– **Dr. Esther Yarmitsky** – UK Department of Science and Innovation and Technology, has a PhD in internet governance, speaking in personal capacity (mentioned in introduction but appears in transcript as “Participant”)

# DNS Trust and Safeguarding Digital Identity: A Comprehensive Workshop Report

## Executive Summary

This workshop at the Internet Governance Forum brought together leading experts from across the DNS ecosystem to examine two critical challenges facing digital infrastructure: the responsible integration of blockchain identifiers with the Domain Name System and the mitigation of online harms through coordinated multi-stakeholder approaches. Jointly organised by the Dynamic Coalition on DNS Issues and the Dynamic Coalition on Data and Trust, the session was framed within the context of UN Sustainable Development Goal 9, which emphasises building resilient infrastructure and fostering innovation.

The discussion revealed consensus amongst participants that both challenges require multi-stakeholder coordination rather than fragmented individual responses. Speakers advocated for integration rather than replacement of existing DNS infrastructure, whilst acknowledging the urgent need for proactive measures to combat the rising scale of cybercrime and online fraud.

## Opening Context and Framework

Keith Drazek, serving as moderator and Vice President of Policy and Government Relations at Verisign, established the session’s framework by connecting the technical discussions to broader policy objectives. He positioned the workshop within the WSIS+20 review process and UN Sustainable Development Goal 9, emphasising how DNS evolution must support sustainable development goals whilst maintaining stability and security.

Emily Taylor, CEO of Oxford Information Labs and co-founder of the Global Signal Exchange, provided brief opening remarks introducing the workshop before handing over to Drazek for the main facilitation.

## Blockchain Identifiers and DNS Integration

### Research Findings on Blockchain-DNS Collisions

Benoit Ampeau, Director of partnerships and innovation at AFNIC, presented research findings revealing actual collisions between blockchain identifiers and existing domain names. Working with the DNS Research Federation, AFNIC identified specific instances where blockchain naming systems have created identifiers that conflict with established generic top-level domains (gTLDs) and country code top-level domains (ccTLDs).

Ampeau provided concrete examples of these collisions, including blockchain identifiers like .wallet, .crypto, .corp, .om, and .mail that conflict with existing or potential DNS namespace usage. He emphasised that these collisions create security risks for users and potential instability for the DNS system.

### Technical Implementation Perspectives

Swapneel Sheth, Senior Director working in Verisign’s office of the chief technology officer, addressed technical challenges facing DNS-blockchain integration. He highlighted critical lifecycle management issues, asking: “How do we think about a domain name that’s transferred or expires after the domain name has been integrated into the blockchain application? How do we avoid risks with inconsistencies, with the security concerns that come along when the same names are used across multiple systems?”

Sheth noted that whilst DNS integrations with blockchain applications have potential, they require responsible implementation to avoid security inconsistencies. He reported encouraging engagement from the blockchain community through collaborative draft development in IETF working groups.

### Strategic Integration Approach

Dr. Esther Yarmitsky from the UK Department of Science and Innovation and Technology, speaking in her personal capacity, argued for integration rather than replacement of DNS infrastructure. She emphasised the importance of answering whether to “integrate this blockchain system into the global domain name system, or do we watch our infrastructure fragment in dangerous ways.”

Yarmitsky advocated for blockchain as a potential secondary security layer that could enhance existing DNSSEC capabilities whilst preserving the single authoritative root principle that ensures DNS stability.

### Industry Questions and Concerns

Edmund Chung from .Asia raised questions about the technical necessity of blockchain enhancements, noting that DNSSEC already provides cryptographic validation and questioning the added value of blockchain for DNS security.

Andrew Campling from 419 consultancy observed that Web3 naming schemes lack mature governance structures and could benefit from DNS governance lessons. He also raised concerns about the environmental and computational costs of implementing dual cryptographic validation systems.

## Online Harm Mitigation: Multi-Stakeholder Approaches

### The Norwegian Model: Identity Verification and Domain Limits

Hilde Thunem, Managing Director of NORID (the Norwegian ccTLD registry for .no), presented a detailed case study of how targeted interventions can effectively reduce DNS abuse. The Norwegian approach requires identity verification for domain registrations, including organization numbers for businesses and national identity numbers for individuals, and limits the number of domains that individual registrants can hold.

Thunem explained that this approach creates friction for scammers whilst maintaining accessibility for legitimate users. She provided a concrete example: “If you want to register santa.no, you have to prove that you are Santa Claus,” illustrating how identity verification prevents impersonation and abuse.

The Norwegian model has proven highly effective in reducing abuse within the .no namespace, demonstrating that well-designed registration policies can significantly impact abuse levels. Thunem also emphasised the importance of robust legal frameworks with clear responsibilities and due process protections.

### Global Signal Exchange: Cross-Sector Threat Intelligence

Lucien Taylor, CTO and founder of the Global Signal Exchange, presented an innovative approach to combating online fraud through cross-sectoral threat intelligence sharing. The Global Signal Exchange operates as a clearinghouse for real-time sharing of scam and fraud signals, processing threat indicators that have grown from 40 million to 270 million, rising by approximately one million per day.

Taylor highlighted a critical asymmetry: “The criminals are moving faster than us. They’re exploiting cross-border legislative tensions and sharing bad things between each other better than we share things.” The platform currently has 160 organisations in its accreditation pipeline, representing significant expansion of cross-sector collaboration.

### Platform Perspectives: Meta’s Approach

Rima Amin, Security Policy Manager for Community Protection at Meta, provided insights into how major platforms address DNS abuse and brand impersonation. She emphasised that DNS abuse accelerates harm across multiple threat areas including domain spoofing, cyber-squatting, and deceptive redirects.

Amin advocated for global solutions and consistent approaches rather than fragmented country-specific responses, noting that the borderless nature of the internet requires coordinated international responses.

### Data-Driven Insights: Concentration of Abuse

Graeme Bunton, Executive Director of the NetBeacon Institute, provided crucial data that reframed understanding of the DNS abuse problem’s scope. His research revealed that “95% of the malicious domains that we see belong to about 50 registrars or less, 80% belongs to less than 20.”

This concentration suggests that targeted interventions could be highly effective. Bunton’s data demonstrated that “the problem space is not huge” and “we can sort of wrap our collective arms around the scope of that problem.” He emphasised that proactive processes and automation are essential given the scale of abuse that reactive reporting cannot handle.

### Governance and Coordination Challenges

Bertrand Lachapelle, Executive Director of the Internet and Jurisdiction Policy Network, provided a systems-level perspective, observing that “this whole thing is a speed and scale challenge and it’s a data challenge. It’s a data sharing challenge.” He noted the emergence of new intermediaries that handle abuse workflow management.

Andrew Campling raised questions about governance gaps, particularly regarding country code top-level domains, noting “the real gap here is the lack of action by some of the ccTLDs” and asking “how do we get governments to also step forward to address this?”

## Areas of Consensus and Disagreement

### Multi-Stakeholder Collaboration

Throughout both discussions, speakers demonstrated consensus on the importance of multi-stakeholder collaboration. This extended to specific implementation approaches, with speakers advocating for coordination through existing frameworks rather than creating entirely new governance structures.

### Integration Over Replacement

Speakers consistently advocated for integration rather than replacement of existing DNS infrastructure when considering blockchain technologies. This reflects understanding of the DNS ecosystem’s complexity and the risks associated with fundamental architectural changes.

### Technical Value Debate

Despite agreement on integration approaches, speakers disagreed about the technical value that blockchain technologies could add to existing DNS security mechanisms. While some advocated for blockchain as a secondary security layer, others questioned whether blockchain provides meaningful improvements over existing DNSSEC capabilities.

## Emerging Challenges and Questions

### Blockchain Community Engagement

Questions arose about how to incentivise blockchain community participation in responsible integration frameworks, highlighting uncertainty about whether blockchain solution providers will engage meaningfully with DNS governance approaches.

### Scaling and Government Engagement

Multiple speakers acknowledged that current abuse mitigation processes struggle with the scale of modern threats. Questions about government engagement, particularly regarding ccTLD accountability, highlighted governance gaps in current approaches.

### Digital Identity and National Infrastructure

Questions from participants highlighted how many government institutions use generic domains instead of their national ccTLD, potentially creating cybersecurity risks and undermining digital identity frameworks.

## Conclusion

This workshop demonstrated both the complexity of challenges facing DNS infrastructure and the potential for multi-stakeholder approaches to address them. The discussion revealed that both blockchain integration and abuse mitigation require coordination mechanisms that preserve existing infrastructure stability whilst enabling innovation and improved protection.

The speakers’ emphasis on integration rather than replacement, proactive rather than reactive approaches, and coordinated rather than fragmented responses provides a foundation for continued progress. However, unresolved questions about blockchain community participation, scaling abuse mitigation, and addressing governance gaps highlight the need for continued engagement.

The workshop’s connection to UN Sustainable Development Goal 9 underscores that these technical discussions have broader implications for global development and digital inclusion. Success will depend on translating the collaborative approaches demonstrated in this workshop into concrete actions that preserve trust in digital infrastructure whilst enabling necessary innovation.

Emily Taylor: Good afternoon, everybody. Thank you very much for joining us this afternoon. You are at workshop 280, the DNS trust horizon, safeguarding digital identity. My name is Emily Taylor. I’m the CEO of Oxford Information Labs and a co-founder of the Global Signal Exchange. And we were asked to put together this panel this afternoon for two dynamic coalitions, the dynamic coalition on DNS issues and the dynamic coalition on data and trust. And thank you to those organizations for asking us to do it. So this workshop will look at the WSIS-20 and the issues of digital trust and identity through the lenses of blockchain identifiers and emerging namespace and multi-stakeholder voluntary measures to fight online harms including scams and fraud. Now, each of these issues requires the domain name system in some way to evolve, to cope with these emerging issues. And each has been a struggle because they’re complex in nature and they require the coordination of multiple stakeholders. We will hear from a range of speakers on the issues and the sessions will be moderated by my good friend and long-term colleague, Keith Drasek, who is Vice President, Policy and Government Relations at Verisign. So with that, Keith, I hand over to you and thank you very much.

Keith Drazek: Thank you very much, Emily. and welcome everybody to our workshop 280. And as Emily noted, this is a joint workshop proposed by the Dynamic Coalition on DNS Issues and the Dynamic Coalition on Data and Trust. And our view of this session is really in some ways the beginning of a multi-stakeholder conversation on two separate issues that Emily touched on. Blockchain identifiers and the need for responsible integration with the DNS and online harm mitigation up and down and across the stack with different roles and responsibilities and technical capabilities for the various actors in the stack. Each one of these really does require multi-stakeholder engagement and multi-stakeholder input. And we just want to call that, you know, this is sort of the beginning of that part of the conversation. So look for more opportunities in the near future to engage on these issues. So I’m going to go ahead and introduce our panelists here. But before I do, I just want to note that as we are here at IGF in a season of looking ahead to the WSIS Plus 20 review, we thought of this workshop in the context of the UN Sustainable Development Goals. In particular, SDG number nine, which is to build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization, and foster innovation. And really both of these topics, I think, are tied directly to that. And so we wanted to really demonstrate that those at the table, industry and other actors, are really engaged in trying to advance in this IGF context some work around that specific SDG number nine. So with that, let me go ahead and introduce our panelists. A little bit of housekeeping. We’re going to have probably five to seven minutes for each panelist to make some introductory remarks. And then we really do want this to be an interactive dialogue with you in the audience and you online. So we’re going to try to keep a good chunk of time. at the end here for the dialogue, and then we’ll probably save five minutes at the end for a little bit of a wrap-up stop taking for the rapporteurs. So, first panelist, and not in order of speaking necessarily, but first on my list is Lucien Taylor. Lucien is a CTO and founder of the Global Signal Exchange, a global clearinghouse for real-time sharing of scam and fraud signals. We also have Hilde Thunem, managing director of NORID, the Norwegian ccTLD registry, .no. We’re thrilled to be here in Norway, of course. Online, I believe we have Graeme Bunton, who’s the executive director, NetBeacon Institute, an organization established by PIR, the .org registry, that’s focused on helping the internet community identify and report DNS abuse, establish best practices, fund DNS research, and share data. We also have Benoit Ampeau, director of partnerships and innovation at AFNIC, the French internet registry. We have Swapnil Sheth, a senior director of research engineering at Verisign in the office of our chief technology officer. And we have Rima Amin, security policy manager, community protection with MEDA. And Dr. Esther Yarmitsky, UK Department of Science and Innovation and Technology. Esther has a PhD in internet governance. She’s here speaking in her personal capacity. And we are very, very happy to have each of you. So with that, I’m going to start off, because we have two topics, I’m going to lead off with the first, and that’s going to be the topic of blockchain identifiers and the DNS. And probably stop after the three speakers have had their chance to have an intervention, give their remarks, and give an opportunity for questions or audience engagement, participant engagement, before we move on to the next section. But I’ll be keeping an eye on the time with the help of Emily, make sure we keep to our schedule. And with that, let’s go ahead and kick it off. So, Benoit, I’m gonna turn to you first on the topic of blockchain identifiers and the need for responsible integration in the DNS. From your perspective, what are the main challenges to maintaining trust in DNS systems in the face of emerging technologies like blockchain?

Benoit Ampeau: Thank you. Hello, everyone. Delighted to participate in this session. So yes, I will talk about the importance of trust in the security of digital identities and the challenges posed by the emergence of the new technologies like blockchain in current internet naming system, the DNS. It’s opening discussion and also concerns. It’s a challenging size to present this broad, complex topic in such a short time. So I’ll do my best. The domain name system, as you know, currently constitutes a reference infrastructure for creating and resolving names on the internet. It’s available to all connected internet people for more than 40 years. During this time, we can observe some initiative for alternate naming systems that have emerged on a regular basis. For instance, I can mention Namecoin or even Gdunet, and they are seeking to establish themselves by exploring models other than DNS, but all partially inspired by DNS. Today, we observe a significant number of organizations creating and establishing naming system based on blockchain all over the world. For many years at AFNIC, we have been studying the theme of trust in DNS applied to different use cases and technical environments, and regularly are evaluating sorry, other integration of identifier namespace, such as those used in the Internet of Things industry or in the blockchain ecosystem. By studying both risks, but also potential complementarities of this identifier system with the DNS. We also conducted a study publishing a report last year on the possibility of blockchain actually replacing the DNS. And now we are currently evaluating for a future report on a more technical layer, the security level that a blockchain identifier system based on a public blockchain would offer on both registration and also name resolution services. In addition to that, we established with our partners from DNSRF here a roadmap of work on the current ecosystem and blockchain identifier solution providers. From name collisions, provider mappings, and their economic models to ultimately, later this year, develop a general risk assessment framework. So, very quickly, three outcomes of our studies. The importance of trust. Trust is essential for the security of digital identities. Without it, users and businesses cannot operate effectively online. Integrating new technologies like blockchain into existing DNS infrastructures presents unique challenges. Blockchain has proven to be very robust in the face of alteration of the data associated with identifiers, but it raises also questions about governance and standardizations. Global consistency and the trust of all stakeholders in DNS have yet to be built for blockchain. Second one, uniqueness of names in DNS and blockchain. These are two different methods to safeguard the uniqueness of names in their naming space. DNS, as you know, relies on hierarchical architecture and a system of delegation, which also provides decentralization, by the way. The uniqueness of names is ensured by a governance system coordinated by ICANN, which supervises the root of DNS through its technical function, IANA. And then, registries such as us are managing each TLD, top-level domain. on a delegated basis. The existence of a single rule trusted by all ensures that no name can be registered twice in the same naming space is key. In the case of blockchains, the naming space is generally regulated by smart contracts which defines the rules for registration and realization of blockchain identifiers. In theory, these contracts ensure the uniqueness of all names under a given contract and several smart contracts can exist on the same blockchain. However, the uniqueness of identifiers is not centrally managed and at the global level of all blockchains, they are operating independently. Therefore, it’s possible for the same identifier to be allocated by more than one blockchain, leading to duplication. The DNS RF study revealed collisions between blockchain identifiers and domain names. For example, some TLDs like .wallet and .crypto could pose security issues if adopted without adequate planning. Sorry about that. Remember last GTLD round in 2012? Printer.om, user.corp were used internal suffixes by corporation and I can receive the application for .corp, .om, .mail, so forth and so on. So we, with DNS RF, have examples of ccTLD and gTLD collisions. Of the three providers we found had created top-level identifiers that were the same as existing gTLDs. One with eight direct conflicts, the second one with four and the last one in one. On the ccTLD level, we also had collision with existing ccTLDs and even two other TLDs with two later top-level identifiers, not delegated by either. So, our work with DNS-RF aims to give a concrete view of the situation to better evaluate and provide a risk assessment framework for other concerned stakeholders, which is important here, institutions, policy makers, for their own purpose. As a conclusion, in a nutshell, maintaining trust in DNS is crucial for digital identities, DNS identities and other digital identities that are relying at some point on DNS. The integration of blockchain within the DNS could present opportunities but also significant challenges that could alter this trust. Proliferation of blockchain identifier systems makes them prone to confusion when resolving names. Finally, stakeholders’ involvement is essential to overcome these difficulties and understand the potential benefits but also, very importantly, the risk. Thank you.

Keith Drazek: Thank you very much, Benoit. And I just want to reinforce one of the things that you mentioned, and that is the importance of the fundamental foundation, the importance of the single authoritative route in dealing with matters in the DNS. And one of the challenges and one of the concerns that you’ve correctly flagged is the potential for duplication of records when there should be a single record. And so I think this is important both in today’s context but also looking ahead to the upcoming launch of a next round of new GTLDs in the ICANN space. There’s currently an application window that’s targeted for April of next year with likely delegation of some of those strings applied for perhaps a year after that. So this is a live and active topic when we’re talking about potential implications both at the technical and the policy level when it comes to expectations around these unique identifiers. So with that, let me turn to Swapnil.

Swapneel Sheth: Hey, thanks, Keith, and thanks for the opportunity for me to be on this stage, part of this conversation. So, domain names, as we know, have been long users’ identifiers, right? In applications, going back all the way, you can think about telnet, FTP servers, email services, and then later, domain names were adapted to be used for the web use case. So, what we’ve seen, though, in the past few years is that there is interest, and blockchain applications and decentralized applications have emerged as a new use case for user-friendly identifiers. So, as an example, blockchain wallets, we’ve all heard of blockchain wallets by now, and so blockchain wallets tend to identify users via a long alphanumeric string, which is human-unfriendly, much like IP addresses are unfriendly. And so, obviously, there is a need for users to be able to use something that’s human-friendly so that they can make their interactions with these blockchain applications easier. And I think that’s one of the reasons why we have seen dozens upon dozens of these alternative namespaces in blockchains, exactly for this use case, which is trying to make interactions much easier with these blockchain applications. What we are also seeing is there’s a lot of interest in using DNS domain names for these use cases in blockchains. and a lot of other people who have been working on this for a long time. So there’s a lot of interest for using DNS domain names in blockchains, and this chain of thought, this line of thought, where you can use a DNS domain name, integrate that with a blockchain application, we call that a DNS integration. So imagine when you’re trying to send cryptocurrency, right, you can use a domain name which you’re familiar with as opposed to using this long alphanumeric blockchain address. Now the thing is, DNS integrations come with their own set of challenges. For example, how do we think about a domain name that’s transferred or expires after the domain name has been integrated into the blockchain application? How do we avoid risks, right, with inconsistencies, with the security concerns that come along when the same names are used across multiple systems? These are really important topics, and without coordination, these systems will fall out of sync, and when they fall out of sync, they will give rise to, you know, unexpected user behavior, inconsistent behavior. And more importantly, these issues will lose or undermine trust that we have built in DNS over the last several decades. Don’t get me wrong, though, ultimately, I think blockchain-based DNS integrations have the potential to enhance the value of DNS domain names, but we believe that the way to get there… is we are responsible DNS integrations, so we can take the well-established benefits of DNS and extend that to these new use cases in blockchains. So safeguarding the stability, security, and reliability of critical internet infrastructure has been at the very core of what VeriZyne does. And alongside keeping the same values in mind, we’re also supporting development of responsible DNS integrations. So what have we been doing? We have published a variety of research papers and measurement studies to raise awareness of SSR issues that exist in today’s DNS integrations. We’ve also, we are actually actively working with the community and encouraging the community to come up with standards and best practices for responsible DNS integrations. I think this is where I see a great opportunity for collaboration. The DNS, along with this long-standing community in ICANN and IGF, have proven to be resilient and adaptable, right? DNS has well-defined standards and practices for transparency, for control, and for domain name lifecycle management. And I think together these principles can inform and should inform how we build and develop these new integrations with DNS. So now the internet success has been rooted in interoperability. Trust and collective ownership. And as we evolve the DNS to these new use cases, as we innovate, we must preserve these values. So here’s my invitation. Let’s work together. Let’s collaborate together so that we can use the existing critical DNS infrastructure for these new use cases, but let’s do so in a manner that supports our collective goals, which is to build a safe, secure, and reliable internet ecosystem. Thank you.

Keith Drazek: Thank you very much, Swapneel. So I’ll turn next to Esther, but I just want to remind everybody that when Esther’s concluding her remarks, we’ll turn to the audience, turn to you for any questions and comments and input that you may have on this particular topic. And of course, our panelists are more than welcome to engage together and compare notes in any conversation that they’d like to have. So thank you. Esther, we’ve heard about various national approaches to digital identity and online safety from the UK’s Online Safety Act to emerging blockchain systems. As AI transforms both the challenges and the potential solutions, what do you think needs to happen at the global level to address the trust and security challenges? Thank you.

Participant: Thank you so much for your question, Keith. I really believe that the choices we will make in the next two years will determine a lot of whether the internet will remain a stable and trustworthy source, or whether it will become a great vulnerability for us. I will explain why in my remarks. Before I begin, just to reiterate, this is not UK government policy, and it is based on my research on AI, but also institutional governance. I think that when Tim Berners-Lee created the World Wide Web, he was probably not expecting how much of our global e-commerce system and our economy would depend on the structures and the protocols that we have in place today. The internet is the backbone for 5.4 billion internet users, which is an incredible number that we hope will grow and reach everyone that hasn’t been connected yet. Living in this type of environment also presents a lot of risks and challenges. I know that we will move to the topic of fraud after this, but I just wanted to highlight… and Rima Amin, and we are here to highlight how important it is that we maintain a secure DNS system as in the United Kingdom alone, fraud accounts for 40% of all crime and 80% of that is cyber. So while all of this is intensifying and we have a lot of issues of fraud in the current DNS system, new naming systems that we are discussing today are emerging in parallel with the global domain name system. So what is happening in the global domain name system is that there is a lot of information, a lot of logic, standards, and their own risks. ICANN, which we respect and love to be the important body that is keeping the internet stable and interoperable, acknowledges that blockchain naming systems are being built outside of the global domain name system. Actually, I just wanted to give you a number that I have been working on for the last couple of years, and it’s a really good time to talk about web 3.0, but also about web 3.0 groups preparing to apply to the next round of GTLDs at ICANN in 2026, and so this is a really good time to discuss these challenges. So the critical choice I want to highlight is that we need to answer the question, and my co-panelists have addressed it, do we integrate this blockchain system into the global domain name system, or do we watch our infrastructure fragment in dangerous ways in which fraud will likely just intensify? And the question that we’re facing today is definitely not whether these systems will emerge and whether this threat will exist, because it already does, and it will, and I think we’ve already moved past that question absolutely. And I am proposing very much a multi-stakeholder approach to really tackling this. And the different stakeholders in the next round will have already been and Rima Ampeau. So, I’m going to talk about the infrastructure that integrates these two systems. Some of the things that I’m thinking about is also connecting it to some of the GDC and SDG lines that we have. So, under the GDC principle 2, it would be very, very smart to integrate cryptographic identity into DNS queries. So, there would be a lot of security, a lot of security, a lot of security, a lot of security, but it would be a very, very smart layer to what you are accessing. GDC principles 3, 4, and 5 would also enable federated AI systems to detect fraud in realtime on top of the structures that we have today. And how does this work? Well, we know that blockchain identifies, they create really strong, secure, secure, secure, secure, secure, secure, secure, secure, secure, secure, secure, secure, secure, secure, secure, secure, secure, secure, secure, secure, secure, secure, secure. So, the GDC principle 3, 4, and 5 would be a great opportunity to combine these two approaches. This would strengthen, actually, the root principle that maintains today’s internet stability and universal connectivity, and that’s why it’s important that ICANN pays attention to this now and really leverages the next round to ensure that AI is not just a tool for the internet, but also a tool for the future, and that’s why we’re here today. So, the GDC principle 3, 4, and 5 would be a great opportunity to combine these two approaches. And how does this work? Well, we know that blockchain identifies, they create strong, This is very important because if we try to soak the points, to succeed, if we try to replace the DNS it will be really bad for the internet. We need to integrate. and the other is that we are trying to integrate any new technology and innovation into the system we have today. And to conclude, being a multi-stakeholder process is the only way forward. No government, no private entity, no civil society group can solve this alone. This needs to be done within the forest that we have today, especially within ICANN, the GAC. It needs to be actively involved to make sure that the next round is successful and integrates these really important thoughts that we are discussing today. Thank you.

Keith Drazek: Thank you very much, Esther. I think this is a really important point to say. Innovation needs to be supported and encouraged, but it needs to be done in a responsible way. So I think each of our speakers so far has really reinforced that issue. I really appreciate your focusing this on the need for the multi-stakeholder engagement around this topic. I think that’s critical and certainly one of the reasons that we’re here today at IGF bringing this to the community’s attention. So with that, let me ask if there’s anybody who would like to come to the microphone or to get – actually, there’s one on each side – or to get in queue, checking to see if we have anybody online. I would say we have five or ten minutes to discuss this topic before moving on if we’d like to, or we could move directly into the online harms discussion and then come back for questions and comments at the end. Edmund, go right ahead. Hello. Welcome.

Edmund Chung: Edmund Chung here from .Asia. I just wanted to pick up on the integrating blockchain and some of the emerging technologies to how we manage the DNS. Two things I want to highlight. One is I thought the question about including cryptographic technologies to the resolution process is quite interesting. I just wonder, currently the DNSSEC protocol – security extensions, do do that. I’m just curious how blockchain would add to the DNSSEC part. The other thing that came to mind is that what about the registration data? I actually personally find the registration data to be quite useful. I mean, blockchain might actually be very useful for registration data, especially for domain transfers, ownership transfers, and authentication of those issues because of the nature of blockchain. See if there are any thoughts on those two things.

Participant: Thank you, thank you so much for your question. And definitely DNSSEC, very good that you brought it up and thank you. I wanted to get into that as well. It’s true that it already provides some form of validations in the DNS responses to prevent that tampering. But this blockchain enhancement really just builds on top of that, I would say. So it would exist as a form of secondary security layer on top of the DNSSEC. And that would be similarly to what would happen when we need to develop quantum resistant data defense processes.

Benoit Ampeau: Yes, I would just add that DNS is secure today. DNS domain names are portable, they’re flexible, and they’re secure. Security is provided by DNSSEC as a means of authentication and otherwise email and web traffic are supported via the encrypted protocols. So I think I want to reinstate that DNS is secure today. Aziz?

Keith Drazek: Okay, thank you very much for that. And Edmund, thank you for that question. We have another speaker. If you could identify yourself please and then go ahead and ask your question.

Andrew Campling: Yep, hi there. Thank you. Andrew Campling. I’m from a consultancy, 419 consultancy, which amongst other things spends time thinking about the DNS. I’d echo the comments about DNSSEC. And yeah, so I’m skeptical that there will be value add on that specific point, doing two lots of the same thing. I think, particularly when I know there’s post-quantum being tested to extend DNSSEC anyway. And we have to think about the compute cost, the environmental cost of doing that twice. So I think we should be cautious heading in that direction. The point I wanted to make, though, some of the, let’s call them the Web3 naming schemes, have as a feature of their creation that they have no governance. So some of the ones that don’t have it as a feature have fairly immature governance, not by design, just because they’re still very early in their evolution. And I think there’s a lot of very useful lessons that could be carried across from the approach to governance in the DNS into those systems. So there will be benefit from integration, at least at the governance level, if not at the technical level. So I don’t know if any panelists want to comment on the governance points.

Swapneel Sheth: So I don’t know if you’ve been following DNSOP, Working Group, and IETF. And so we have a couple of drafts that we’re working on towards responsible DNS integration. And one of the ones was recently, as of early this week, was adopted by the Working Group. And it talks about what are the considerations for integrating DNS domain names into blockchain namespaces or blockchain applications in a responsible manner. So it’s sort of a checklist of things to go through as you’re building your integration. And hopefully, by the end of it, you will have a responsible integration. And that will obviously have the governance of the DNS because it’s it’s routed into the DNS. I can manage DNS route if that helps answer your question. Yeah and going back just a plug-in here for the since you bought a post quantum DNSSEC. If you are interested in that topic we are actively working on it. We will have hackathons and we’ll also have a PQ DNSSEC side meeting at the upcoming IETF meeting. Please join us and feel free to contribute.

Benoit Ampeau: fully agree with what you said but from the blockchain provider solution perspective we do not know yet if they would like to engage in this way in the responsible integration. So basically we know internet it’s complex we all know this. Maintaining, providing consistent user experience for a stable resilient secure internet it’s complex. So we’ll see what the future will be by integrating this kind of factors into the DNS ecosystem at large.

Swapneel Sheth: I’ll make another point while we’re on the topic is the interest from Web3 community. So the draft I just talked about I have co-authors from ENS which is a alternative namespace in the blockchain Ethereum name service and another co-author is Blue Sky which is a decentralized social media namespace that’s trying to use DNS domain names as social media handles. So I just want to say that there is enough interest from the Web3 community to integrate responsibly as long as we have we are willing to work with them.

Participant: And maybe just to add again to emphasize that this is important to think about now because now ICANN has an opportunity to seriously engage with as I mentioned earlier it is a growing industry there is interest but it’s our responsibility coming from kind of the ICANN and traditional DNS system to to engage and that’s also within our hands.

Keith Drazek: Thank you very much and Andrew thank you for the question and the engagement. we have two quick questions I think in the chat that Emily will read and then we’ll probably pivot and move on to the online harms discussion and we can always come back to this at the end so Emily.

Emily Taylor: Yes so we had a comment from Luke Siffer saying okay I’ll sum it up it’s not that complex the entire web 3 4 5 blockchain saga is merely a creatively lazy attempt to monetize the internet by fragmenting DNS with an alternative route nothing revolutionary here just reheated hype time to move along Bevan Wathen did a thumbs up and an agree to Esther’s call for for integration and not replacement of the DNS and a Carolina from Oxhill hello Carolina asked two questions how do we ensure responsible integration happens in a multi-stakeholder manner and also how to get the blockchain community to participate what incentives exist for them to participate I think a lot of those the second question you touched on in in the just the recent remarks thank you.

Keith Drazek: Yeah thanks very much Emily and I think to Carolina’s question about you know what are the opportunities for engagement I think the dynamic coalitions that are represented here I think our future opportunities for continued engagement in a multi-stakeholder way on this conversation but probably not the only options so we should be creative and think about how to reach out and engage folks from from this particular community but also other multi-stakeholder actors and perspectives to make sure that we have a well-informed and broad sort of understanding of the various concerns and opportunities so thank you for that we will now pivot and move on to our discussion on online harm mitigation I’ll just take a couple of minutes to give some context and maybe frame the discussion over the last five ten years and Benoit Ampeau. The third type of abuse is phishing, farming, malware, botnet, command and control distribution and spam when spam is used as a delivery mechanism for those other four. Obviously, that is just a subset of the broader topic of online harms, right? So that’s, you know, DNS technical abuse. There’s obviously other online harms that are related to content, and there are a number of different actors in the system, and there are a number of different technical capabilities to mitigate abuse at the most appropriate time, the most appropriate level, without disproportionate impact on other actors in the system. So I think what we’re going to talk about today is the broad topic of online harms, and with that, I’m going to turn first to Hilde. Hilde, a question for you. The Norwegian top-level domain .no is an example of a very broad topic of online harms, and I’m wondering if you could talk a little bit about the reasons why online harms are being used for abuse like phishing, malware, and spam. Could you share some insights from your perspective into what could be the reasons, or what could be the reasons behind that? Thank you.

Hilde Thunem: ≫ Thank you for having me here on the panel. I’d like to start by saying that just like in the offline world, I think online abuse rates are a very important part of the world, and I think that the Norwegian model and the Norwegian approach to the .no domain name provides one example of how many different stakeholders can work together and have a positive effect. So all domain registries, people like me that hand out domain names, we operate within a ecosystem of the local law where we’re based and the registration policy. And one of the factors that influence the type of neighborhood that sort of grows under a top-level domain is the requirements that the registry imposes on those wanting to register domain names. So the registration policy for NO is shaped by NUDID, but we do this in consultation with different stakeholders in the Norwegian society and within the domain regulation that provides a sort of framework for the basic principle of this. And one of the requirements we have is that anyone who wants to register a .no domain name must identify themselves by providing either the organization number registered in the Norwegian Register for Business Enterprises, and foreign companies can do this if they have a Norwegian subsidiary, or as an individual to have a national identity number registered in the National Population Register. So if you worked in Norway for a long time you get one of these. And before granting the right of use to a domain to anyone, we verify that they exist in one of these official registers. So we look it up and this ensures that each NO domain name is registered to a real individual or organization who is responsible for how the domain is used. So sad to say, and I hope I’m not breaching any childhood dreams here, but Santa Claus does not have a .no domain name because he does not exist. But of course this is not only a sort of registry only effort, because we don’t talk to the domain holders directly. So it’s the registrars who have the direct contact with their customers that are required to know who they are, and to sort of ensure that the one contacting them actually represents the organization that they are. are trying to register a domain for. But how they do this is left to the registrars, because that varies widely if you’re a small registrar that knows every customer personally, or you’re a large registrar with different control systems. And then we also have a very, I think, fairly unique Norwegian rule that there is a limit to how many domain names each domain holder can have. So if you’re an individual, you get up to five domain names, and if you’re a company, you get up to a hundred. And the rationale behind this is that domain names are a limited resource, or good domain names are that. And sort of in the Norwegian way of, there must be some cake left on the table for the latecomers. We want to keep some domains still there so that early adopters don’t get to take them all. So both of these requirements are there for other reasons than fighting online harm. But they have the happy side effect that they irritate the scammers a lot. Because first of all, someone wanting to register a domain to use it for illegal content, for scams, for spam, they have to either identify themselves or steal somebody else’s credentials. And when they do, and they sneak past the registrar’s control mechanism, they get only a hundred domain names, or five if they stole somebody’s personal credentials. And that’s kind of friction for those that need to burn through a lot of domain names in order to spread their scams. At the same time, the whole point of making it slightly difficult for the criminals is also not to create a big burden on the legitimate domain holders. Because we want people to have domain names. We want them to have their little corner of the internet where they have ownership of the content they produce instead of just… just being at the online large technical social media platforms. And so, this makes NOF a fairly safe space, but of course there are Norwegian criminals and there are other criminals that steal credentials. So, in the cases that domain names are used to commit a crime, then the rest of the regulatory ecosystem comes into play. So, the Supreme Court in Norway established as early as 2009 a principle that it’s the domain holder that holds the responsibility for the use of the domain name. And since that is actually a real person or an organization, there is a place to start if one wants to take action. And this year, the revised Electronic Communication Act provided further clarity by putting this principle into law. So, as a last resort, when proportionate action may be taken against the domain name. But such measures requires a process that safeguards the legal rights of all the involved parties. And this is especially important because for top-level domains like .no with the presence requirements, almost all of the domains that are used for the technical online harms like phishing are compromised domains. So, the domain holder is a victim that has his website or has his domain compromised and not necessarily the perpetrator. But in those rare cases where a domain name needs to be taken down instead of the content acted upon, Norwegian police have a clear mandate in law to seize domain names. Similarly to what they can do in the offline world where they can seize a car or a gun or a dog if it has bitten someone and to keep as part of a case that’s raised. And just like in the offline world, also in the online world, when they seize a domain name, they have to follow the requirements for due. process. And the Consumer Protection Agency have the same sort of power to go and require domain name to either be deleted or transferred in the cases that it’s serious online harm to consumers as a whole. But in those cases, they have to go to court just to prove that they have tried less impactful actions first. So in summary, I think it’s the combined effort of the registry and the registrars as part of the registration process, and then the regulatory framework and the public authorities, both providing official databases we can use, but also acting when illegal content or other online harm is being a problem.

Keith Drazek: Thank you very much, Hilde. And I want to just touch on a point that you raised, and that’s the important distinction between domain names that have been registered with malicious intent or for the explicit purpose of perpetrating fraud or crimes or online harms, and compromised websites or compromised web hosts. And I think you also noted that there could be an instance where a domain name that was registered with perfectly legitimate intent had an account compromise. So it actually could be there’s sort of a range of possibilities there in terms of the use of the domain name. But I think you also reinforced an important point that depending on the nature of the harm or the nature of the abuse, there could be action that’s appropriate at the registry level or the registrar level or in combination somehow, or there’s the need to engage the content layer of the infrastructure stack to make sure that the web hosts, the CDNs, are also involved in instances where a website’s been compromised, because they’re the only actors that can take the surgical act needed to be able to address that particular bit of harm. And so proportionality is important in all of that, but Thank you for all of that. Thank you, Hilde. Okay, I’m gonna turn to Lucian next. Lucian, on day zero, we had, there was a great session, I recommend it to everybody, on online fraud and scams. And so we heard in that session from you about the Global Signal Exchange, your new initiative to address a number of challenges in tackling scams and fraud. So curious what you’d like to share on that and how it’s different from any other initiatives. So, Lucian, thank you.

Lucien Taylor: Thank you very much, Keith. I just wanted to say, I think we’re gonna do our little speeches and then there’ll be questions after that if you wanna take a rest. Okay, thank you very much. Yeah, Keith, thank you for that. And three short answers, and then I’ll extemporize. One is, the first one is that we didn’t just dream up the idea of the GSE ourselves of sort of building a Global Signal Exchange. A number of organizations came together in a multi-stakeholder community and asked for that organization to be created. In other words, that it was missing in the current fight against scams and fraud. And so how are we different? Well, we seek to change the game in the effort to tackle scams and fraud. And finally, in the answer to the… Well, it’s a point that I generally want to say we’re here at the IGF and we really think that this is the ideal sort of space, this multi-stakeholder environment to discuss these sorts of things. But I’ve also been hearing about the Internet Infrastructure Forum and others where these are safe places which are less polemic where we can actually come together and figure out how to solve this without kind of getting into a circular firing squad. So to dig in, my first point, was the creation of a new data signal sharing entity. The need for a cross-sectorial international signal sharing platform was… identified in the Global Anti-Scam Summit in Lisbon in 2023. And the GSE brings together a number of partners to deliver a new service to fight scams and fraud. Currently, we’ve got 160 organizations in the accreditation pipeline. So there is a strict accreditation process. We’ve got the commitment from four big tech, including Meta, thank you, Rima. And we’ve got a huge new opening, proprietary threat intelligence from Google, which is opening, they’re opening up their own in threat intelligence to this new idea, this new venture, and trying to less depend on these sort of lots of threat signal bilaterals and have a single service to go through as a kind of broker. We also have, we’re in negotiations with several governments and law enforcement bodies. So how are we changing the game? Cybercrime is rising relentlessly. I don’t think any of us can argue with that really, seriously. I’ve asked my family to look at their phones and give me some WhatsApp examples. And they’ve just got dozens of, you know, you’ve got to pay a fine, you’ve got to pay for, you’ve got a new bill from some car park or some tax office. We’re under this relentless pressure all the time to reevaluate the things that we’re being presented with. There are a number of initiatives across the internet supply chain, verticals, we call them verticals, that are doing good things. But cybercrime, the vector is still increasing. When I talk about the internet supply chain, I talk about the supply chain that’s available to scammers and fraudsters. That is building their infrastructure. A fraudster will build a domain name, identity, register a company, build a website, benefit from content delivery network. and so on. They will then establish false IDs on social media channels and on email and others. They will then easily engage with the potential victims through chat, through email, through messaging services. And finally, step four, I call it, a banking commitment is made, a crime is registered. And at that point, we know we’re dealing with a criminal. And then they package those fraud services and recycle them and make them available and actually provide a fraud and scamming industry for others to enjoy. So the criminals are moving faster than us. They’re exploiting cross-border legislative tensions and sharing bad things between each other better than we share things. So the GSE aims to deliver new things. First of all, face up to the governance and policy challenges. And they are considerable. We’ve been talking about them in ICANN and IGF for decades now. And secondly, address the technical challenges. Now, in terms of the governance and policy challenges, we are tackling head-on the cross-border international and cross-sectorial challenges. And we’ve hired good lawyers. And I’m not going to even bother to talk about all of that today. Thank you very much, Emily. In terms of the technical challenges, I’ll get back into my comfort zone. We’ve invented our own acronym called Quick Factors, QIQ. You can’t invent a new organization without some new acronyms. First, those quick factors are quantity, immediacy, and quality. In terms of quantity, have we got enough data to reflect the actual problem, to reflect the problem that consumers are suffering? In January, we had 40 million threat signals. Let me put that into context. The action fraud, City of London Police, they’re getting 30,000 threat signals every month. We’ve risen from 40 million threat through the Google stack, up to 270 million threat signals. They’re rising by a million threat signals a day. And we still believe we’re not seeing half of it. Hopefully when Meta and more come on board and start supplying those signals, we’re going to start to see really what the consumer is suffering from. We want those more signals to be provided for the participating organizations. And we call this uplift. Uplift is when all parties share signals and thereby find new information for themselves over and above their own stocks of threat intelligence. We observe uplift. We also want to reduce the cost of signals for the smaller players. Immediacy. We need to make things quicker and reduce the time to live for scams and fraud online. The time between a signal reported and a signal being mitigated needs to be brought down from an average of four days between detection and mitigation. Esther mentioned the need for federated models and quantum big computing power and AI to move towards real-time threat detection to identify these clusters as they’re happening. Finally, quality. To tackle both the quality of the signal and the provider, these are impacted by two things. Confidence scores and feedback. So a signal provider can attach their own confidence score to a signal and this can be improved by what we call overlap. When all parties share signals and simultaneously detect the same signal, we increase confidence. And the second big part of our work is to develop a feedback loop. This is a concept that came from cybernetics. It’s something that I employed in 2023 and started talking about because it’s missing in the game. And the feedback loop is an enormously challenging bit of work. you can’t just provide feedback to threat intelligence signals which are low quality kind of neighborhood watch type things. These are not evidence-based pieces of data that will stand up in court. So the signals are absolutely essential. I’m running out of time so I’ll just summarize. We have a number of pilots with registries, registrars, advertising communities, big tech doing handshakes, and police and law enforcement. Thank you very much.

Keith Drazek: Thank you very much, Lucian. And, you know, I think what you’ve described is a clear need for an intermediary, an aggregator of data, clearinghouse, platform of data sharing between threat reports, threat intelligence, reporters of abuse, and the operators of infrastructure that have the capability to address that abuse, right? So thank you very much. Just time check, we’ve got 18 minutes left. We have two panelists yet to speak and I’m going to try to keep a few minutes, five minutes at the end for any questions and engagement from you. So, Rima, if I could turn it over to you. Thank you.

Rima Amin: Sure. Thank you. So I’ll start by saying that our team in security policy work to counter adversarial threats in a number of different areas. So that tends to cover influence operations, cyber espionage, hacking, and frauds and scams. And throughout all of those different areas, the evidence shows that DNS abuse accelerates the harm to people and businesses across the board. Our teams are really focused on working to prevent, mitigate, and stay ahead of these threat actors that are looking to abuse sort of matters platforms and violate our policies by redirecting users off over to malicious. off-platform links, but I think as everyone has kind of said here today that this is a internet ecosystem problem, so we need to really have that sort of multi-stakeholder approach to be able to responsibly manage and mitigate some of these DNS abuses. Just to touch on a couple of the sort of the key areas that we’re concerned about and that we see, so the first sort of being domain spoofing, where domain names are created closely to resemble legitimate ones in order to deceive the people using our platforms. We also see them being used to sort of phish people online and sort of steal sort of their credentials. The second area relates to sort of cyber-squatting and domain impersonation, and impersonation of things like businesses and sort of well-known brands, again created to lure people into thinking they’re into a safe space that they sort of know, and sort of commit harms towards those people. The third is relating to deceptive sort of redirects, so adversarial actors may attempt to route users to malicious websites by making them think that they’re visiting a legitimate one, and then they get thrown over to a harmful website potentially with sort of malware and other harmful things. One emerging area that we are seeing is the use of link aggregators and shortners, so we’re seeing threat actors really sort of leverage those in order to sort of evade URL impersonation that might be sort of easier to detect, so that’s one sort of area that is emerging. Just to dive a little bit more into the frauds and scams space and how the DNS and Rima Ampeau. So, I’m going to start with the accounts side. So, if you are a fraudster, you’re most likely to use a fake account or a compromised account. Compromised accounts are particularly lucrative because they have legitimacy and sort of history behind them. And those accounts may also be used to sort of manage sort of different business profiles, et cetera. So, for example, if you are a fraudster, you’re most likely to use a fake account. So, one way that they might try to gain access to that account is, again, through sort of malicious links, which would sort of install malware and steal credentials and a bunch of other different things there. Once identities are created to sort of Lucien’s point earlier, the actor will try to engage with their victim. So, for example, if the victim is trying to engage with a bank, they try to engage with a bank and they get a message from a bank and they add a message and whatnot, then the victim is often taken over to a website. Now, that website might be sort of impersonating a particular shop. They try to buy a product. They no longer receive a product. They try to go back to the website. They don’t get any recourse. And then they go over to the banks. And then they try to go back to the website. So, that’s one example of how the victim is trying to get out of a platform and make sure it doesn’t reemerge. But to Lucian’s point about how long they stay on the internet, they still continue and continue to exist on other platforms and cause harm. A couple of things that we’ve been doing also to protect the misuse of sort of Meta’s brand, we hope we can continue to use that. In summer we started in 2024 last URLs that came from sort of Vietnam. We’ve also been able to take down 9,000 URLs that were impersonating sort of WhatsApp, Facebook, Meta, Instagram, threads and reality labs. So we are able to take some action, but we do think more is needed. To go back to the point about these websites existing on the internet, we take efforts to share the intelligence and signals that we have. So we do that through sort of existing signal sharing programs that we have with industry. And we also think GSE has a lot of potential, especially because it’s not just industry focused, but because there’s sort of cross sector sharing that is happening there. In terms of sort of moving forward here, a couple of things that we think would be really helpful. I think the first is having sort of global solutions. We’ve seen some really good sort of practice here today. And I think bringing those into sort of global context would be helpful because of the nature of sort of the internet. We see a lot of countries trying to tackle this sort of in their own way. And so if there was a consistent approach, we think that would be incredibly helpful. We also sort of advocate for sort of transparency and accountability policies to navigate DNS abuse, including sort of areas to help with authentic engagement online. The sort of remediation side, so making sure that abuse is mitigated sort of as promptly as possible. And we also support the whole of sort of community cooperation here because we do understand that it is a complex problem. We all only see different parts of it. And so we actually just need to be pulling these pieces together.

Keith Drazek: Okay. Thank you very much, Rima. I think that last point is really critical, and that’s collaboration, cooperation, information sharing up and down and across the stack, and also to both of your points about the need for cross-sector engagement. For example, the financial processing transactions industry, you know, they have information that would be very helpful to other parts of the Internet stack. That’s just one example. So thank you very much for that. Appreciate it. Graeme, I’m going to turn to you next, and then we’ll probably try to keep five minutes at the end for questions and answers and community engagement. So Graeme, over to you.

Graeme Bunton: Thank you, Keith. I will try and be brief. First of all, apologies that I couldn’t be there in person. I’ve got a pretty small kid at home and have been traveling a bunch, and it turns out that generates some difficulty sometimes. And really appreciate being able to participate in this panel. I’d like to share here a bit today on some of the work that we’ve been doing to try and disrupt online harms and what we’ve learned in that process and how we think that can contribute to further work within this community. So first, a little bit about the NetBeacon Institute. It was created by Public Interest Registry in 2021. PIR is the operator of the .org TLD and is a not-for-profit and needs to do good works in service of that not-for-profit mission, and really felt like there was a gap within the ecosystem around issues of DNS abuse, that there wasn’t someone in the middle of that focused on this issue, working across the community within ICANN and outwards to try and educate, collaborate, build tools and resources to try and disrupt DNS abuse. And so the institute was created to try and fulfill that need. We’re not commercial as a part of the not-for-profit. I’ll talk a little bit about the services that we offer, but we don’t do anything for fee or cost recovery. All of what we do is free. And so as we began this work with the mission of trying to make the internet safer for everybody, we first needed to understand the landscape of DNS abuse. And so we created a project called NetBeaconMap, Measurement and Analytics Platform, which is a free and transparent, academically robust attempt to measure the prevalence of DNS abuse across the ecosystem, as well as things like concentration, mitigation rates, and median time to mitigation. And we do all of that work in partnership with CoreLabs out of the University of Grenoble, an academic there named Professor Maciej Korczynski. And so we’ve been providing this data publicly to the ecosystem for three years, I’ve lost some sense of time being stuck in this room, and really trying to enable the multi-stakeholder community to try and do data-driven policy discussion and development, as well as really drive industry action based on rigorous data. And so what have we learned from that? Well, a couple of things. One is that 95% of the malicious domains that we see belong to about 50 registrars or less, 80% belongs to less than 20. And so on a malicious domain front, in a way, that’s good news. The problem space is not huge. There’s differences between the registrars and TLDs also in that data. But we can sort of wrap our collective arms around the scope of that problem. There are changes that we can make. There’s ways that we can bring all of these parties together and improve the situation. We can see now the changes within the industry based on the ICANN contract amendments that came into effect last year, where we begin to see the larger, more active players getting and Benoit Ampeau. The DNS abuse rate is incrementally better, but they are close to diminishing returns, I think, on issues of DNS abuse for the sort of large, more engaged registrars in the space, and we can see abuse concentrating now in a smaller number of more highly abused registrars and TLDs. Right now, we see a really acute issue with two registrars, with very large abusive campaigns happening, and we’ll publish more on that in a moment, but I think the DNS abuse rate has begun to influence how we begin to approach this problem and think about it, and that really led us to how can we begin to disrupt these things, and so we built NetBeacon Reporter, which is a conduit for abuse reporting that anyone can use via web form or API, and use it to submit abuse reports to any gTLD registrar or participating ccTLD or registry, as well as we distribute to hosting companies and CDNs, so what we’re trying to do is take abuse reports in, we standardize them, we enrich them, we make them better, we reduce the technical burden on the reporter, and we distribute those abuse reports to multiple layers of the internet stack to try and disrupt those harms. That work was directly responsive to some multi-stakeholder outputs, SSR2 and SSEC 115, which is a multi-stakeholder report, and we also have a multi-stakeholder report on SSR2 and SSEC 115, if you speak ICANN, most specifically, and so we’ve been running that now since 2020, and doing somewhere around the realm of about 20,000 abuse reports a month, and we learn an awful lot from that sort of volume. We’re getting a lot of feedback from the hosts and registrars that we’re reporting to on the quality of those reports, and we can see who’s taking action, when, and why. And going back to some of the points made by the other panelists, especially around the Thank you, Luchin, for that. Boy, it seems very clear that improving reactive processes around abuse, there’s still some room there. We can do better at evidence gathering and we can do better at getting abuse reports to registries, registrars, and hosts in a timely fashion, and we can get better at helping them respond quicker. And all of those, I think, are interconnected. Lastly, it seems really clear that we need improved, reliable, and accessible proactive processes. Abuse is happening at such a scale that trying to react all the time isn’t sufficient. There are days where we have sent 6,000 abuse reports out, 7,000 abuse reports out to individual registries or registrars, and that just doesn’t work. It just doesn’t scale that way without some form of automation, but really it’s about getting in front. And so how do we think collectively about getting in front of some of these issues? And lastly, a point I want to make about trust and users is that I think we can rely a little bit on trust based on behavior within these systems rather than identity, because behavior on that platform, how many domains have you registered? How many, how long, how old is your hosting account? Those attributes can’t be faked and feel like a really good place to begin building trust on as we begin to think about who has access to these tools and resources. I’ll stop there. I know we only have a few minutes. Thank you very much for the time.

Keith Drazek: Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Graham. Really appreciate it. We have like three minutes left, so I’ve got two people at the microphone, if we could be brief. Oh, and I’m sorry, we have three, yes. So let’s try to fit in at least the three interventions. So go right ahead. Thank you so much.

Audience: Hello. Thank you for these wonderful interventions. My name is Yuv, I’m from Senegal. I really appreciate the topic, especially the digital identity, the DNS. Senegal has had a DNS since the 80s, but in 2025, some ethnic institutions send emails, not with the .sn, but with a .ya or a .go, a .ya or a .gmail, which even constitutes a risk, since the question of cybersecurity arises. And recently, the State of Senegal was the victim of two cyber attacks. So, as an expert, what would you propose to the State, so that we can use the .sn in administrative services, so that there is a digital identity, but also to strengthen security?

Keith Drazek: Thank you very much for the translation. So, good question. Maybe we can take that offline, since we have a couple of others in queue. So, is that Andrew again?

Andrew Campling: It is. I’ll be real quick. Two very quick points. Firstly, ICANN have done some great work to tighten up the contracts to address some of the DNS abuse issues. The real gap here is the lack of action by some of the ccTLDs. So, how do we get governments to also step forward to address this? So, maybe this is the right forum for that, as some of them are here. despite the good work in ICANN, the definition of DNS abuse that ICANN uses is incredibly narrow. And for example, that doesn’t address things like CSAM, although it does cover phishing. So, how can we get more work done to broaden the definition so it has even more impact than it already has?

Keith Drazek: So, thank you very much, Andrew. I can respond to that very briefly. As far as the the definition of DNS abuse, one of the bright lines is when you get into content-related matters, ICANN’s bylaws prohibit it from getting involved into content. So, the definition of DNS abuse is relatively narrow by necessity of ICANN’s bylaws. But there are other venues for discussing content-related harms that are sort of being discussed and developed. And Bertrand, I’m going to turn to you as the shepherd of the Internet Infrastructure Forum. That’s one of the areas where some of these content-related discussions are going to take place. Thanks.

Bertrand Lachapelle: Yeah, thank you. Thank you, Keith. So, in a nutshell, I’m Bertrand Lachapelle. I’m the Executive Director of the Internet and Jurisdiction Policy Network. As Keith mentioned, we have been asked to organize a space to address a certain number of the abuses that do not, that cannot be addressed within the ICANN environment and also to engage other actors than just the DNS operators. I want just to make, and this is the Internet Infrastructure Forum, which is a new thing that started basically in February this year. I want to very quickly mention, in light of what you’ve been saying, this whole thing is a speed and scale challenge and it’s a data challenge. It’s a data sharing challenge. The second thing is that scams, frauds and so on, there is a concept that is evolving that we’ve been discussing in the IIF, which is the notion of theft by deception. This is a category of problems that require or would really benefit from Coordinated Action by the different actors along the stack. The next thing is what I love about what has been presented here, what we do with the IIF, is that these are bottom-up, spontaneous self-organizations, just like the ITF emerged, just like the other organizations emerged. This is multi-stakeholder, bottom-up initiatives in action. It actually is what is needed because the governments are hobbled by the jurisdictional challenges that prevent them from addressing cross-border issues. And the last thing is what is really interesting is that we see the emergence, and Graeme was here. Lucien, you’re talking about what you’re doing with the signal exchange. There are layers here. The IIF is a space for the discussion of what could be done by the different actors. We see the emergence of new intermediaries that handle the abuse workflow problem, management, and what you’re doing is contributing to the platforms for exchanging signals. And I think this is building the ecosystem that, at last, will allow later on to engage law enforcement and other actors so that the whole number of actors can, in a network fashion, address those abuses.

Keith Drazek: Thank you very much, Bertrand. And with that, we are two-plus minutes over time, so I think we probably need to move to wrap up. I just want to say thank you all very much. Thanks to the panelists. Thanks to everybody online. Thanks to you in the room. And we look forward to carrying this on. I wish we had another hour, but we need to close the session. So thank you very much.

Agreement points

Multi-stakeholder collaboration is essential for addressing DNS challenges

Speakers

– Emily Taylor
– Swapneel Sheth
– Participant
– Rima Amin

Arguments

Multi-stakeholder coordination is essential for addressing complex DNS evolution challenges

Multi-stakeholder collaboration is needed to develop standards and best practices for responsible DNS integrations

Multi-stakeholder processes within existing frameworks like ICANN are the only way forward for successful integration

Global solutions and consistent approaches are needed rather than fragmented country-specific responses

Summary

All speakers agree that the complex challenges facing DNS – whether from blockchain integration or online harms – require coordinated multi-stakeholder approaches rather than fragmented individual efforts

Topics

Infrastructure | Legal and regulatory | Digital standards

Integration rather than replacement of DNS is the preferred approach for blockchain technologies

Speakers

– Benoit Ampeau
– Swapneel Sheth
– Participant

Arguments

Trust is essential for digital identities and blockchain integration presents unique governance and standardization challenges

DNS integrations with blockchain applications have potential but require responsible implementation to avoid security inconsistencies

Integration rather than replacement of DNS is crucial, with blockchain enhancing security as a secondary layer

Summary

Speakers consistently advocate for responsible integration of blockchain technologies with existing DNS infrastructure rather than attempting to replace the established system

Topics

Infrastructure | Cybersecurity | Legal and regulatory

Proactive and automated approaches are necessary to address the scale of online abuse

Speakers

– Lucien Taylor
– Graeme Bunton
– Rima Amin

Arguments

Real-time threat detection and improved feedback loops are necessary to reduce time-to-mitigation for scams

Proactive processes and automation are essential given the scale of abuse that reactive reporting cannot handle

DNS abuse accelerates harm across multiple threat areas including domain spoofing, cyber-squatting, and deceptive redirects

Summary

All speakers working on abuse mitigation agree that the current scale of online abuse requires moving beyond reactive approaches to proactive, automated, and real-time detection and response systems

Topics

Cybersecurity | Infrastructure | Digital standards

Similar viewpoints

These speakers share skepticism about the technical necessity and governance maturity of blockchain naming systems, emphasizing that existing DNS security mechanisms may already address many concerns

Speakers

– Benoit Ampeau
– Edmund Chung
– Andrew Campling

Arguments

Name collisions exist between blockchain identifiers and existing DNS domains, creating security risks

DNSSEC already provides cryptographic validation, questioning the added value of blockchain for DNS security

Web3 naming schemes lack mature governance structures and could benefit from DNS governance lessons

Topics

Infrastructure | Cybersecurity | Digital standards

Both speakers demonstrate that DNS abuse problems are manageable through targeted interventions – whether through registration requirements or focusing on high-abuse registrars

Speakers

– Hilde Thunem
– Graeme Bunton

Arguments

Identity verification requirements and domain limits create friction for scammers while maintaining accessibility for legitimate users

DNS abuse is concentrated among a small number of registrars, making the problem manageable through targeted action

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Cybersecurity | Infrastructure

These speakers advocate for coordinated, cross-sector approaches to combat online abuse, emphasizing that fragmented national or sector-specific responses are insufficient

Speakers

– Lucien Taylor
– Rima Amin
– Bertrand Lachapelle

Arguments

Cross-sectoral international signal sharing is needed to combat the rising scale of cybercrime

Global solutions and consistent approaches are needed rather than fragmented country-specific responses

Coordinated action across the internet stack is needed for ‘theft by deception’ categories of abuse

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Jurisdiction | Cybersecurity

Unexpected consensus

Web3 community willingness to engage in responsible integration

Speakers

– Swapneel Sheth
– Participant

Arguments

Web3 community shows interest in responsible integration through collaborative draft development

Multi-stakeholder processes within existing frameworks like ICANN are the only way forward for successful integration

Explanation

Despite potential tensions between traditional DNS governance and decentralized blockchain philosophies, there appears to be unexpected willingness from Web3 communities to work within existing multi-stakeholder frameworks and develop responsible integration standards

Topics

Infrastructure | Digital standards | Legal and regulatory

Concentration of DNS abuse making the problem manageable

Speakers

– Graeme Bunton
– Hilde Thunem

Arguments

DNS abuse is concentrated among a small number of registrars, making the problem manageable through targeted action

Identity verification requirements and domain limits create friction for scammers while maintaining accessibility for legitimate users

Explanation

Rather than DNS abuse being an overwhelming distributed problem, there’s consensus that it’s actually concentrated and manageable through targeted interventions, which is more optimistic than might be expected

Topics

Cybersecurity | Infrastructure | Legal and regulatory

Overall assessment

Summary

The speakers demonstrate strong consensus on the need for multi-stakeholder collaboration, responsible integration of new technologies with existing DNS infrastructure, and coordinated approaches to combat online abuse. There’s agreement that both blockchain integration and abuse mitigation require proactive, systematic approaches rather than fragmented responses.

Consensus level

High level of consensus with significant implications for policy development. The agreement suggests that the DNS community is aligned on fundamental principles of responsible innovation and coordinated abuse mitigation, providing a strong foundation for developing concrete standards and implementation frameworks. The consensus spans technical, policy, and operational perspectives, indicating mature understanding of the challenges and viable paths forward.

Different viewpoints

Value of blockchain enhancement to existing DNS security

Speakers

– Participant
– Benoit Ampeau
– Edmund Chung

Arguments

Integration rather than replacement of DNS is crucial, with blockchain enhancing security as a secondary layer

Trust is essential for digital identities and blockchain integration presents unique governance and standardization challenges

DNSSEC already provides cryptographic validation, questioning the added value of blockchain for DNS security

Summary

While the Participant advocates for blockchain as a secondary security layer on top of DNSSEC, Edmund Chung questions whether blockchain adds value beyond existing DNSSEC capabilities, and Benoit Ampeau emphasizes the governance and standardization challenges that blockchain integration presents.

Topics

Infrastructure | Cybersecurity | Digital standards

Scope of DNS abuse definition and responsibility

Speakers

– Keith Drazek
– Andrew Campling

Arguments

ICANN’s DNS abuse definition is necessarily narrow due to content restrictions in bylaws

Government action is needed to address DNS abuse gaps in ccTLD operations

Summary

Keith Drazek defends ICANN’s narrow definition of DNS abuse as necessary due to bylaw restrictions on content matters, while Andrew Campling argues for broadening the definition and criticizes the lack of action by ccTLDs, suggesting governments should step forward.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Cybersecurity | Infrastructure

Unexpected differences

Environmental and computational costs of dual cryptographic validation

Speakers

– Andrew Campling
– Participant

Arguments

Web3 naming schemes lack mature governance structures and could benefit from DNS governance lessons

Integration rather than replacement of DNS is crucial, with blockchain enhancing security as a secondary layer

Explanation

Andrew Campling raised an unexpected concern about the environmental and computational costs of doing cryptographic validation twice (both DNSSEC and blockchain), which wasn’t anticipated in a discussion primarily focused on technical integration challenges. This practical sustainability concern contrasts with the Participant’s focus on security enhancement benefits.

Topics

Infrastructure | Cybersecurity | Development

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion revealed relatively low levels of fundamental disagreement, with most speakers sharing common goals around maintaining DNS security and stability while enabling innovation. The main disagreements centered on technical approaches (blockchain value-add vs. existing DNSSEC) and governance scope (narrow vs. broad DNS abuse definitions).

Disagreement level

Low to moderate disagreement level. The speakers generally aligned on core principles but differed on implementation approaches and technical solutions. This suggests that while there are legitimate concerns to address, the multi-stakeholder community has sufficient common ground to work toward collaborative solutions for both blockchain integration and DNS abuse mitigation.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

These speakers share skepticism about the technical necessity and governance maturity of blockchain naming systems, emphasizing that existing DNS security mechanisms may already address many concerns

Speakers

– Benoit Ampeau
– Edmund Chung
– Andrew Campling

Arguments

Name collisions exist between blockchain identifiers and existing DNS domains, creating security risks

DNSSEC already provides cryptographic validation, questioning the added value of blockchain for DNS security

Web3 naming schemes lack mature governance structures and could benefit from DNS governance lessons

Topics

Infrastructure | Cybersecurity | Digital standards

Both speakers demonstrate that DNS abuse problems are manageable through targeted interventions – whether through registration requirements or focusing on high-abuse registrars

Speakers

– Hilde Thunem
– Graeme Bunton

Arguments

Identity verification requirements and domain limits create friction for scammers while maintaining accessibility for legitimate users

DNS abuse is concentrated among a small number of registrars, making the problem manageable through targeted action

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Cybersecurity | Infrastructure

These speakers advocate for coordinated, cross-sector approaches to combat online abuse, emphasizing that fragmented national or sector-specific responses are insufficient

Speakers

– Lucien Taylor
– Rima Amin
– Bertrand Lachapelle

Arguments

Cross-sectoral international signal sharing is needed to combat the rising scale of cybercrime

Global solutions and consistent approaches are needed rather than fragmented country-specific responses

Coordinated action across the internet stack is needed for ‘theft by deception’ categories of abuse

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Jurisdiction | Cybersecurity

Key takeaways

Trust is fundamental for digital identities and DNS systems, requiring careful integration of new technologies like blockchain rather than replacement

Name collisions between blockchain identifiers and existing DNS domains create security risks that need proactive management

Multi-stakeholder collaboration is essential for developing responsible DNS-blockchain integration standards and addressing online harms

DNS abuse is concentrated among a small number of registrars (95% from ~50 registrars), making targeted action feasible

Cross-sectoral international signal sharing and real-time threat detection are critical for combating the rising scale of cybercrime

Identity verification requirements and domain limits can create effective friction for scammers while maintaining legitimate user access

Proactive processes and automation are necessary given the scale of abuse that reactive reporting alone cannot handle

Legal frameworks with clear responsibilities and due process are essential for addressing compromised domains

The internet infrastructure requires coordinated action across the entire stack to effectively combat ‘theft by deception’ categories of abuse

Resolutions and action items

Continue multi-stakeholder engagement through Dynamic Coalitions on DNS Issues and Data and Trust

Develop risk assessment framework for blockchain identifier systems (AFNIC and DNSRF collaboration)

Advance responsible DNS integration standards through IETF DNSOP Working Group drafts

Expand Global Signal Exchange participation with 160 organizations in accreditation pipeline

Utilize Internet Infrastructure Forum as a space for discussing cross-border abuse coordination

Engage ICANN GAC and other stakeholders in next GTLD round to address blockchain integration concerns

Continue development of NetBeacon tools for abuse reporting and mitigation

Promote post-quantum DNSSEC development through hackathons and IETF meetings

Unresolved issues

How to ensure blockchain community participation in responsible integration efforts and what incentives exist for their engagement

Whether blockchain provides meaningful security enhancement over existing DNSSEC given computational and environmental costs

How to address DNS abuse gaps in ccTLD operations and encourage government action

How to broaden ICANN’s narrow DNS abuse definition while respecting content restrictions in bylaws

How to scale abuse mitigation processes to handle millions of daily threat signals effectively

How to develop global consistent approaches for DNS abuse rather than fragmented country-specific responses

How to improve feedback loops and evidence quality in threat intelligence sharing

How to encourage government institutions to use national ccTLDs for digital identity and security purposes

Suggested compromises

Integration rather than replacement of DNS with blockchain technologies, using blockchain as a secondary security layer

Responsible DNS integration that preserves existing DNS governance while enabling new blockchain use cases

Behavior-based trust systems rather than purely identity-based systems for platform access

Coordinated multi-layer approach involving registries, registrars, hosting providers, and content delivery networks

Bottom-up, multi-stakeholder self-organization initiatives to address cross-border jurisdictional challenges

Balanced approach between creating friction for bad actors while maintaining accessibility for legitimate users

Combination of reactive abuse reporting with proactive automated detection and prevention systems

The critical choice I want to highlight is that we need to answer the question… do we integrate this blockchain system into the global domain name system, or do we watch our infrastructure fragment in dangerous ways in which fraud will likely just intensify?

Speaker

Esther Yarmitsky

Reason

This comment reframed the entire blockchain-DNS discussion from a technical implementation question to a fundamental strategic choice about internet infrastructure integrity. It elevated the conversation beyond technical details to existential concerns about internet fragmentation and security.

Impact

This shifted the discussion from ‘how to integrate’ to ‘why we must integrate responsibly.’ It connected the blockchain naming discussion directly to fraud prevention, creating a bridge between the two main topics of the workshop and emphasizing urgency in decision-making.

DNS integrations come with their own set of challenges. For example, how do we think about a domain name that’s transferred or expires after the domain name has been integrated into the blockchain application? How do we avoid risks… with inconsistencies, with the security concerns that come along when the same names are used across multiple systems?

Speaker

Swapneel Sheth

Reason

This comment introduced concrete technical challenges that hadn’t been fully articulated, moving beyond theoretical concerns to practical implementation issues. It highlighted the lifecycle management problems that could undermine trust in both systems.

Impact

This grounded the discussion in practical realities and led to more detailed technical exchanges about DNSSEC, governance models, and the need for standards. It prompted Andrew Campling’s intervention about governance lessons from DNS that could benefit blockchain systems.

The criminals are moving faster than us. They’re exploiting cross-border legislative tensions and sharing bad things between each other better than we share things.

Speaker

Lucien Taylor

Reason

This stark observation highlighted a fundamental asymmetry in the fight against online harms – that criminal networks are more agile and collaborative than legitimate defense systems. It challenged the assumption that current approaches are adequate.

Impact

This comment shifted the tone from technical solutions to strategic urgency, emphasizing the need for speed and coordination. It provided context for why initiatives like the Global Signal Exchange are necessary and influenced subsequent discussions about real-time threat detection and cross-sector collaboration.

95% of the malicious domains that we see belong to about 50 registrars or less, 80% belongs to less than 20… The problem space is not huge. There’s differences between the registrars and TLDs also in that data. But we can sort of wrap our collective arms around the scope of that problem.

Speaker

Graeme Bunton

Reason

This data-driven insight fundamentally reframed the scale of the DNS abuse problem from seemingly overwhelming to manageable, while also pinpointing where efforts should be concentrated. It provided concrete evidence that targeted interventions could be highly effective.

Impact

This shifted the discussion from broad, systemic concerns to focused, actionable solutions. It influenced Andrew Campling’s follow-up question about ccTLD accountability and reinforced the importance of data-driven approaches that other speakers had mentioned.

The real gap here is the lack of action by some of the ccTLDs. So, how do we get governments to also step forward to address this? So, maybe this is the right forum for that, as some of them are here.

Speaker

Andrew Campling

Reason

This comment identified a critical governance gap in the multi-stakeholder approach to DNS abuse, pointing out that while ICANN has tightened gTLD contracts, ccTLDs operate under different governance models that may not be addressing abuse adequately.

Impact

This intervention highlighted the limitations of current policy approaches and the need for government engagement, connecting technical solutions to policy and governance challenges. It demonstrated how the multi-stakeholder model itself has gaps that need addressing.

This whole thing is a speed and scale challenge and it’s a data challenge. It’s a data sharing challenge… we see the emergence of new intermediaries that handle the abuse workflow problem, management… this is building the ecosystem that, at last, will allow later on to engage law enforcement and other actors.

Speaker

Bertrand Lachapelle

Reason

This synthesized the entire discussion by identifying the core challenges (speed, scale, data sharing) and recognizing the emergence of new institutional forms to address these challenges. It provided a systems-level view of how various initiatives fit together.

Impact

This comment served as a capstone that tied together the various threads of discussion, showing how technical solutions, policy initiatives, and new organizational forms are part of an evolving ecosystem response to online harms.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally shaped the discussion by elevating it from technical implementation details to strategic infrastructure decisions, introducing concrete data that reframed problem scope, and highlighting critical governance gaps. Esther’s framing of integration versus fragmentation set the stakes, while Swapneel’s technical challenges grounded the discussion in practical realities. Lucien’s observation about criminal agility created urgency, Graeme’s data provided actionable focus, Andrew’s governance critique exposed policy gaps, and Bertrand’s synthesis showed how various initiatives form an emerging ecosystem response. Together, these interventions transformed what could have been separate technical and policy discussions into a coherent analysis of how internet infrastructure must evolve to address emerging threats while maintaining trust and stability.

How do we ensure responsible integration happens in a multi-stakeholder manner?

Speaker

Carolina from Oxhill

Explanation

This addresses the governance challenge of coordinating multiple stakeholders in blockchain-DNS integration while maintaining security and trust

How to get the blockchain community to participate – what incentives exist for them to participate?

Speaker

Carolina from Oxhill

Explanation

Understanding motivation and incentive structures is crucial for successful multi-stakeholder engagement in responsible DNS integration

How can we get more work done to broaden the definition of DNS abuse so it has even more impact?

Speaker

Andrew Campling

Explanation

Current ICANN definition of DNS abuse is narrow and doesn’t address issues like CSAM, limiting the scope of mitigation efforts

How do we get governments to step forward to address DNS abuse issues, particularly regarding ccTLD action?

Speaker

Andrew Campling

Explanation

There’s a gap in enforcement where some ccTLDs are not taking adequate action against DNS abuse, requiring government intervention

What would experts propose to help states use their ccTLD in administrative services for digital identity and security strengthening?

Speaker

Yuv from Senegal

Explanation

Many government institutions use generic domains instead of their national ccTLD, creating cybersecurity risks and undermining digital identity

Will blockchain identifier solution providers engage in responsible integration with DNS?

Speaker

Benoit Ampeau

Explanation

Uncertainty exists about whether blockchain providers will participate in responsible integration frameworks being developed

How can federated AI systems be effectively integrated to detect fraud in real-time on top of existing DNS structures?

Speaker

Esther Yarmitsky

Explanation

This represents a technical challenge for implementing AI-powered fraud detection while maintaining DNS stability and performance

How can we develop improved, reliable, and accessible proactive processes for DNS abuse mitigation?

Speaker

Graeme Bunton

Explanation

Current reactive approaches don’t scale effectively – proactive measures are needed to get ahead of abuse at the scale it’s occurring

How can we improve the feedback loop mechanism for threat intelligence signals?

Speaker

Lucien Taylor

Explanation

Developing effective feedback loops is challenging but essential for improving signal quality and creating evidence-based data for enforcement

How can we achieve global consistency in approaches to online harm mitigation across different jurisdictions?

Speaker

Rima Amin

Explanation

Different countries are tackling online harms in their own ways – a consistent global approach would be more effective given the internet’s borderless nature

Summary

Amy Mitchell from the Center for News Technology and Innovation presented a discussion on safeguarding diverse independent news media through policy considerations. She highlighted that society is currently passing more journalism-related laws than ever before, while simultaneously facing challenges in defining what constitutes journalism in the digital age. Mitchell emphasized that 50% of journalists surveyed internationally had experienced some form of government censorship, and global press freedom scores have declined to 1993 levels.

The presentation focused on how well-intentioned policies can have unintended consequences on press independence and journalism viability. Mitchell outlined critical questions that should be explored in any digital policy, including definitional language, oversight authority, diversity protection, public service, and cross-border impacts. She presented findings from three major studies conducted by her organization.

The first study examined 32 “fake news” policies across 31 countries between 2020-2023, finding that most policies created greater risks to journalistic independence than they provided protection. Only seven of these policies actually defined what constitutes fake or illegal content, while 14 placed control directly in government hands. The second study analyzed 23 media remuneration policies designed to provide revenue streams to journalism, revealing dramatic variations in how digital usage and compensation were defined across different jurisdictions.

Mitchell emphasized the importance of considering public perspectives in policy development, noting that the public has a broad definition of journalism producers beyond traditional news organizations. She concluded by advocating for collaborative, data-driven conversations among policymakers, technology companies, media organizations, and civil society to balance technological benefits while mitigating potential harms to independent journalism.

Keypoints

**Major Discussion Points:**

– **Growing Policy Challenges for Journalism**: The discussion highlights how more laws affecting journalism are being passed than ever before, while it’s simultaneously becoming harder to define what constitutes journalism. This is occurring amid declining press freedoms globally, with 50% of surveyed journalists experiencing some form of government censorship.

– **Definitional Problems in Policy Language**: A critical issue identified across policies is the vague or inconsistent definition of key terms like “fake news,” “journalism,” and “illegal content.” Most policies studied (25 out of 32 fake news policies) failed to clearly define these terms, leaving interpretation to government authorities.

– **Government Authority and Control Mechanisms**: The research reveals that many policies place oversight authority directly in government hands, with 14 of 32 fake news policies giving control to central government. This raises concerns about potential misuse of well-intentioned policies for information control.

– **Media Remuneration and Financial Sustainability**: The discussion covers policies aimed at creating revenue streams for struggling journalism industries through digital platform compensation, but notes wide variation in how “usage” and compensation are defined across 23 different policies.

– **Unintended Consequences of Digital Policies**: Even well-intentioned policies designed to protect the information space can inadvertently harm press independence and diversity. The speaker emphasizes the need to consider cross-border impacts and long-term effects, particularly with emerging AI policies.

**Overall Purpose:**

The discussion aims to present research findings on how digital policies worldwide are impacting journalism and press freedom, while proposing a framework of critical questions that policymakers should consider to safeguard independent, diverse media while addressing legitimate policy concerns.

**Overall Tone:**

The tone is academic and analytical, maintaining objectivity while expressing underlying concern about threats to press freedom. Mitchell presents as a researcher sharing findings rather than an advocate, emphasizing data-driven analysis. The tone remains consistent throughout – informative and measured, though with clear implications about the risks facing independent journalism. During the Q&A, the tone becomes slightly more conversational while maintaining the same analytical approach.

Speakers

– **Amy Mitchell**: Director, Center for News Technology and Innovation (CNTI). Has 25 years of experience at Pew Research Center where she helped launch and directed the journalism line of research. Currently leads a global research center focused on enabling independent, sustainable news media, maintaining an open internet, and fostering informed public policy discussions.

– **Audience**: Multiple audience members who asked questions during the Q&A session. Areas of expertise, roles, and titles not specified.

Additional speakers:

None identified beyond those in the speakers names list.

# Safeguarding Diverse Independent News Media: Policy Considerations and Global Challenges

## Executive Summary

Amy Mitchell presented a comprehensive analysis of how digital policies worldwide are impacting journalism and press freedom. Drawing from extensive research conducted by her organisation, the Center for News Technology and Innovation (CNTI), Mitchell highlighted the unprecedented challenges facing independent media in an era where more journalism-related laws are being passed than ever before. The discussion revealed alarming trends in global press freedom, with 50% of journalists surveyed having experienced some form of government censorship, and worldwide press freedom scores declining to 1993 levels.

The presentation centred on the critical observation that well-intentioned policies designed to protect the information space often create unintended consequences that harm journalistic independence and diversity. Through analysis of fake news policies, media remuneration frameworks, and emerging AI regulations, Mitchell demonstrated how vague definitional language and inappropriate oversight mechanisms can transform protective policies into tools for information control.

## Background and Research Context

Mitchell began by establishing her background and the context for CNTI’s work. Coming from 25 years at the Pew Research Center where she helped launch the journalism line of research, Mitchell now leads CNTI, an organisation that is “not quite two years, a little over a year and a half now” old. CNTI works in partnership with organisations including the Global Fund for Media Development (GFMD), Online News Association, and several others.

The research presented emerged from collaborative efforts including a Mexico City convening co-sponsored with OEM, where stakeholders from across the journalism ecosystem gathered to examine how digital policies affect independent media. This work addresses the fundamental challenge that society is experiencing an unprecedented volume of legislation affecting journalism, both directly and indirectly, at a time when press freedoms are declining globally.

## Current State of Journalism and Policy Landscape

Mitchell established the gravity of the current situation facing journalism globally. The research revealed that 50% of the journalists surveyed had experienced some form of government censorship within the past year. Global press freedom scores have deteriorated to levels not seen since 1993, creating an environment where policies originally intended for protection are increasingly being used to imprison and control journalists.

The challenge is compounded by the evolving nature of journalism itself. In the digital age, traditional definitions of journalism and news organisations no longer capture the full spectrum of information producers that the public relies upon. This definitional ambiguity creates vulnerabilities in policy frameworks that may inadvertently exclude legitimate journalism whilst failing to address actual threats to information integrity.

Mitchell emphasised that the volume of legislation affecting journalism is unprecedented, with lawmakers worldwide grappling with how to regulate digital spaces without clear understanding of the implications for press freedom and independent media.

## Research Methodology and Key Questions

To address these challenges systematically, Mitchell outlined key questions that CNTI examines when analysing digital policies affecting journalism:

– How policies define crucial terms such as “journalism,” “fake news,” “illegal content,” and “digital usage”

– Who has oversight authority to interpret and enforce policies

– Whether policies adequately protect diverse voices in the media landscape

– How clearly policies articulate their goals for serving public information needs

– The cross-border impacts of national policies

Mitchell stressed the importance of thinking beyond national boundaries when considering policy impacts, as digital policies often have far-reaching effects through international platforms and the tendency for policies to be copied across jurisdictions, sometimes by authoritarian regimes for harmful purposes.

## Analysis of Fake News Policies

One of CNTI’s most significant studies examined 32 fake news policies across 31 countries implemented between 2020 and 2023. The findings revealed troubling patterns that suggest these policies create greater risks to journalistic independence than protection for the information space.

The most striking finding was the widespread failure to define key terms. Only seven of the 32 policies actually defined what constitutes fake or illegal content, leaving interpretation of these crucial concepts to authority figures. This definitional vacuum creates dangerous ambiguity that can be exploited for information control rather than protection.

The research revealed concerning patterns in oversight authority, with 14 of the 32 policies placing control very specifically in government hands. The penalties varied dramatically, with imprisonment terms ranging from less than one month to over three years (with Zimbabwe specifically mentioned for the longest sentences), reflecting inconsistent and often disproportionate regulatory approaches.

Mitchell emphasised that whilst the stated intentions of these policies were often laudable—protecting citizens from harmful misinformation—the practical implementation frequently created tools that could be used to suppress legitimate journalism and dissenting voices.

## Media Remuneration Policy Analysis

The second major study examined 23 media remuneration policies implemented between 2018 and August 2024, designed to create new revenue streams for struggling journalism industries through compensation from digital platforms. These policies, including various US state-level initiatives, represent attempts to address the economic challenges facing traditional media in the digital age.

The analysis showed dramatic variation in how different jurisdictions defined key concepts such as “digital content usage” and compensation criteria. This inconsistency creates confusion for both platforms and media organisations operating across multiple jurisdictions and may lead to uneven outcomes.

Particularly concerning was the finding that these policies inconsistently addressed the diversity of news media, with many appearing to favour large, established operations over smaller, independent outlets. Furthermore, most policies failed to clearly articulate how they would better serve public information needs, risking becoming mere economic transfers rather than tools for improving the information landscape.

## AI Policy Implications

Mitchell’s research also examined emerging artificial intelligence policies and their implications for journalism. While few AI policies directly address journalism, they have significant indirect impacts through their effects on content creation, distribution, and liability frameworks.

The research revealed that AI policies often place liability on users, including journalists, without providing clear definitions of appropriate use or adequate safeguards for legitimate journalistic activities. This creates uncertainty for journalists who wish to benefit from AI technologies whilst avoiding legal risks.

Mitchell emphasised the need to consider how AI policies affect journalists’ ability to harness technological benefits whilst guarding against potential risks, particularly given the cross-border nature of AI technologies.

## Public Perspective and Behaviour

A crucial element of Mitchell’s analysis focused on understanding public perspectives on journalism and information consumption. CNTI conducted surveys in four countries to understand how the public defines journalism and consumes information.

The research revealed that the public has a much broader definition of journalism than traditional policy frameworks typically recognise, including individual journalists working independently, mission-driven content creators, and principle-guided information producers. Both journalists and the public view technology as critically important for news production, gathering, dissemination, and consumption.

Importantly, Mitchell noted that substantial research shows disinformation campaigns don’t have as much impact on what people actually believe as previously thought. Instead, people’s own behaviour and choices about where to seek information appear to be more significant factors in determining what they accept as credible.

## Discussion and Key Exchanges

The presentation generated significant discussion during the question-and-answer session. Key exchanges included:

**Methodological Questions**: An audience member questioned the value of including established autocracies in policy analysis. Mitchell responded by emphasising that autocratic policies matter because they affect real people and can be copied by other countries for harmful purposes, highlighting the interconnected nature of global policy development.

**EU Policy Analysis**: When questioned about including individual EU member states rather than focusing on EU-wide legislation, Mitchell explained that they specifically looked at country-specific fake news policies rather than broader frameworks like the Digital Services Act.

**Alternative Approaches**: Discussion explored focusing on the demand side of disinformation—understanding why people believe and engage with false information—rather than concentrating primarily on supply-side regulation. Mitchell noted that psychological defence approaches, such as those employed by Sweden’s dedicated agency, could offer valuable alternatives to traditional content moderation policies.

## Key Findings and Implications

The comprehensive research yielded several critical findings:

**Definitional Failures**: The widespread failure to define key terms in digital policies creates dangerous ambiguities that can be exploited for information control, suggesting that policy development must prioritise clear, precise definitions.

**Government Oversight Concerns**: The tendency to place oversight authority directly in government hands raises serious concerns about potential misuse of well-intentioned policies.

**Diversity Challenges**: Many policies fail to adequately protect diverse voices in the media landscape, often favouring large operations over smaller, independent outlets.

**Cross-Border Policy Migration**: Policies developed in one jurisdiction often influence or are directly copied by others, sometimes for harmful purposes, emphasising the global responsibility that comes with policy development.

**Public Behaviour Complexity**: The research challenged assumptions about disinformation effectiveness, suggesting that individual choice and political bias may be more significant factors than external manipulation campaigns.

## Future Research and Recommendations

Mitchell announced that CNTI plans to spend more time examining the relationship between public behaviour and disinformation policy effectiveness. The organisation is developing a research working group focused on public response to AI content labelling and watermarking systems.

Key recommendations included:

– Collaborative, data-driven conversations among policymakers, technology companies, media organisations, researchers, and civil society

– Policy design based on clear understanding of how the public actually seeks and consumes information

– Clear articulation of desired digital information landscape goals before implementing content moderation policies

– Integration of specific safeguards against government overreach and mechanisms to protect diverse, independent voices

## Conclusion

Mitchell’s research revealed the complex and often contradictory nature of contemporary digital policy as it affects journalism and press freedom. While many policies intend to protect the information space and support quality journalism, implementation often falls short of these goals and may create new threats to press independence and diversity.

The findings suggest that effective digital governance requires more sophisticated understanding of public behaviour, global policy dynamics, and the changing nature of information production and consumption. The research provides a valuable framework for approaching these complex issues, emphasising the need for international coordination and careful consideration of unintended consequences in policy development.

As Mitchell emphasised, the challenge lies in creating policies that actually serve public information needs while protecting the diverse, independent media ecosystem that democracy requires.

Amy Mitchell: Hello, hello, that’s loud. I’m Amy Mitchell from the Center for News Technology and Innovation and I look forward to talking with you today about safeguarding diverse independent news media in policy. We are at a point in our society today where we are passing, debating and passing more laws that relate to journalism both directly and indirectly than we ever have. This is occurring at the same time that it is harder than ever to put borders around what journalism is and what it is not and that is from the perspective both of the business and legal kind of laws and policy space as well as what the public considers journalism and the things and sources that they rely on to keep them informed on a daily basis. We are also seeing a growing array of issues in the policy space that relate to journalism. Everything from content moderation to protection of the internet to disinformation to artificial intelligence, again, times that are directly related and other times where it’s indirectly related. In this space of the digital landscape, policies that are passed in one country very much tend to impact and be impacted by policies that are passed in another country. It’s very important to be thinking about these things across country and regional borders. We are seeing all of this happen amid a time when we are facing growing government encroachment on information control and on press freedoms. This comes through both in data we gather from journalists themselves. What you see in front of you is an international survey of journalists that CNTI conducted with a number of partnership organizations like GFMD, Global Fund for Media Development, Online News Association, and several others around the world. You see here that 50% of the journalists that we surveyed, this was in the fall of last year, had experienced some form of government censorship ranging from not being allowed to cover or access an event to complaints about their content to imprisonment. 50% had experienced at least one form of that in the last year. We’re also seeing the world press freedom scores across the board go down from the entities that are tracking this data year in and year out, so much so that we are down to 1993 levels of world press freedoms. This is occurring both when we look at the government censorship as well as the independent protection of journalists in this space. We’re also hearing it in the conversations that we have. One of the things CNTI does is host convenings, which are really daylong working sessions with a combination of folks from journalism, technology, policy space, research, civil society, to talk about these issues. This is one that we held in Mexico City with OEM, was our co-sponsor there. This conversation specifically focused on how to continue to produce journalism amid ongoing security threats, both on and offline. A lot of the discussion that came up from those in the rooms had to do with not only feelings of safety and other kinds of online abuse, but also in terms of the ways that policy had been used, policy that was technically in theory aimed at protection of information, or if journalists was being actually used to imprison or otherwise control journalists and the information space. If we look across the policy space amid this landscape today, what we find in the data is that even the best intended policy, that which is really looking to safeguard our information space to create vibrant digital landscapes, can end up having unintended consequences on the independence of our press and on journalism viability more broadly. The question becomes, how can policy address the issue areas of concern, of which we’re talking about here this week, while safeguarding an independent, diverse media and the public’s access to a plurality of fact-based news? That’s where CNTI comes in. The Center for News Technology and Innovation is a global research center. We’ve been around not quite two years, a little over a year and a half now, but we are an organization that focuses on enabling independent, sustainable news media, maintain an open internet, and foster more informed public policy discussions. We do this by conducting research as well as synthesizing research from others. My background is research. I come from 25 years at the Pew Research Center. I helped launch the journalism line of research there, directed that for many years. I have now decided to move into this space. We also help synthesize research. As a research community, I think we do a pretty lousy job sometimes of helping make sense of what our research all adds up to, where there are gaps, and where we need to do more. We then host convenings, like I was talking about, to try to really work through some of the challenging questions in these spaces and come up with informed solutions. Back to the question, how can policy address issue area concerns while safeguarding an independent, diverse news media and a vibrant digital landscape? Here we go to some of the research that CNTI has done over the last year that I’m going to talk about over the next few minutes. What we do is range from policy analysis to issue primers to surveys. We did the journalist survey. We’ve done a four-country public survey as well that both was a mix of focus groups as well as fully representative statistical surveys, convenings around the world, and more. What I put forward today is a set of questions that we have found to be critical questions to explore in any digital policy that is being debated and thought about today. Again, both those that directly relate to journalism, but also very much so where the journalism and a vibrant digital landscape are likely to be impacted, even if not directly related in the policy. I’m going to spend more time on each of these, so I’m going to run through them very quickly right now. The first question is, what’s the definitional language? We started with a lot of our work just saying, how is journalism being defined here? How about a journalist? How about news? The other areas that are being talked about in this policy, what’s the definitional language and how consistent or inconsistent might that be across policy in ways that matter? The independence of journalism, a big question to be spending a lot of time on is, who is given that oversight authority to determine the details of how a law gets practiced and enacted? Diversity, one of the things that the internet brought was a diverse landscape of information in a way that served minority communities, bringing new kinds of voices into this space. How do we work to build a vibrant digital landscape in a way that still safeguards that diversity of voice, especially in the news and information space? Serving the public, we talk about doing all of this to serve the public. How are we actually serving the public in these policies, especially in the behaviors and the ways that they access and get information today? Social relevance, being forward-thinking, cross-border impacts, and also unintended consequences that may or may not be clearly evident on the surface. These questions to explore all take time and deep thought and collaborative discussion. The first study I’m going to share a little bit about is one that we did that looked at fake news policies around the world. And we put the fake news in quotes many of these actually use the language of addressing fake news. We looked at 32 policies That were proposed for enacted between 2020 and 2023 They cut across 31 countries and so I’ll say straight out that there are more of these that were in a talker in autocracies, but 11 of the countries included here are democracies and so the findings that that Really resonate across different government types in terms of some of the takeaways that can happen and overall the the overall conclusion was that overall these policies created greater risk to journalistic independence and Diversity as well as the public’s access to a diversity of fact-based news than they did to actually safeguard the information space Get back getting back to definitions one of the first things we looked at here was How is fake news or illegal content defined And how might news or journalism or what might be considered real news? Be defined and you can see here that only seven of the 32 actually put a definition around what fake or illegal content was and the remaining left that vague which leaves it up to the Authority figure right the one who gets to make the decision about the enactment of that policy to put those definitions in place same thing on the news and journalism only to Actually spoke to what real news or journalism might be and this is very much a double-edged sword We talked a lot about this with some of the folks at UNESCO guy Berger was an advisor on this on this project he’s done a lot of work with UN and and information integrity and one of the things that You know we talked about in this report is a degree to which Well defining these things in policy can help safeguard Journalism and an independent press it can also be language that gets used against journalism and an independent press So it’s very important both to really consider the definitional language But also to then get to the next question, which is okay. Who’s the authority figure? Who’s the one that then gets to determine what that language means That’s what we looked at next in this study and you can see 14 of the 32 policies very specifically put the control of the authority there in the hands of the government itself and Most of those were talks about the central government being the ones that that was in control There were others that that gave the authority to some sort of body within the government where it was often unclear how closely Associated that other body was to the central government figure or not and the remaining Left it unclear as to who had authority to arbitrate that law or that policy Which then naturally puts it back in the hands of the government? The next question then becomes okay What’s the punishment if you get if you get put in to Determine that you were a part of this fake news and the bulk of these policies did have some sort of Imprisonment and it ranged from Less than one month in less those so I think up to over three years In Zimbabwe and so there was real government action that can be taken against journalists by the uses of but by the language in these policies and so before I move on to the next study if we just broaden this out to a question about content moderation policy more Broadly, one of the things that’s really important to ask in that space of policy Disinformation content moderation etc. Is what is the end goal for the way? The content is going to look and I’m not sure one of the things that we’re spending more time in the coming year looking at Is that very question? It’s not clear within the policy conversation space that we’ve really actually done a very good job at all of Articulating what would the digital landscape look like if this content moderation policy that we’re talking about gets put in what is it? That’s bad. That’s out. What is it? That’s good. That’s in what’s the mix? There’s always going to be a mix of content in there. So really taking the time to think about the ultimate goals there The second study that I’ll share a little bit about was this very specifically this news an example of one that specifically looked at Was very directly related to journalism in the media space So these were media remuneration policies which are basically revenue policies looking to be a revenue stream to add some revenue Financial lifeblood into the journalism industry, which many of you know has been having a hard time lately with its financial structures and support and this looked at 23 policies that were considered or passed from 2018 through August of 2024 And there’s a pretty wide mix. I will say it does include also a number of state Policies in the u.s. Because the state policy space in the u.s. Is very active these days. So there are quite a number in this That are included the first thing we did here was start a framework And this is a something else that we really recommend when you’re in a complex policy space with a wider range of the kind of Focus or orientation of these policies is to say, okay What’s the actual financial structure or the oriented subject? Orientation of how this is going to work and you can see here that the first three are really around actually usage usage Criteria digital interaction that then says that that warrants some sort of compensation The second set is subsidies that are either coming directly from tech platforms or in some cases from the government itself and then the third is a Tax mechanism, which is either creating or building off of new taxes and once you get this framework in place for whatever your subject area your policy is you can any new policy that comes in you Figure out where does it fit in into the framework that we’ve created? So then we broke the analysis into two parts again with these core questions that I showed you all earlier in the top of our minds and the first was definitional in the sense that it was how is how is the usage and interaction of digital content determined and Then when that definitional boundary is put on if and and then if so To what degree what amount of content should be paid for that content? How does that decision get made? When is it appropriate to charge for digital usage is compensation for digital usage applied consistently? Who benefits then who gets that money? Where does that money actually go and then the second half of the analysis looks at the questions of these core? Viability or sustainability elements to journalism. How do we keep an independent news media? How do we support diversity in this space? How do we sustain journalism that is actually serving the way the public gets informed today? And so I’m gonna walk through this really quickly because this is a lightning talk But there’s a lot more detail on the website if you want to go into any more of it and I welcome I’d be happy To talk with anybody about it in in greater detail as well so first on the digital usage side what this really shows is just when you look at what the Criteria of usage was or is articulated across these policies. It varies Dramatically and so the two green Circles are actually at the sort of what’s at the ends of the spectrum in terms of where what you know? Usage could be in time in terms of content and then you see here inside that it ranges from things like Clicking on a URL link to having a title of the article to actually well It’s usage of content for indexing or it’s creating an article summary and having that summary that that warrants content And so the definition of what usage and interaction actually means varies dramatically across these policies and so too Does what the level of compensation would be? as well as who that compensation would be going to. In some cases, it’s going to the organizational level. In some cases, it’s going to individual journalists. Usually, it’s actually at the organizational level. There’s been more in the recent months that has been shifted to going to journalists or journalism producers themselves. So we see a great variety there, which brings us back to the importance of really articulating from the get-go what the goal is and how do we use the best language to clearly articulate and in a consistent way what we mean here. And then the second half of the study, as I mentioned, looks at these journalistic viability elements. First, independence and diversity, public interest and access. And when we talk about independence, as we saw in the fake news study, anytime you’re creating policy, you give the government a role, which isn’t a bad thing, right? That’s what policy is for. But it does mean it’s really important to think about what are the safety mechanisms in place to be sure that in this case, particularly in the journalism and news space, that it doesn’t end up giving an individual government or figure, as the years progress, the ability to take control over the information space. And one of the things we saw in these policies was that in many cases, even if it was left unclear as to who had that authority to arbitrate the law, and if there were third party or third agencies, kind of how that got determined and how it would get determined over time. Diversity, again, the biggest thing we saw was that it was a really inconsistent and kind of haphazard approach to the diversity of news media that would be in there. A lot of these that began really ended up oriented more around your very large news operations and outlets. And some, as we got further into the policy timeline, called out ethnic, certain minority kinds of media or ethnic news outlets. There was only those that really focused on the tax extension element that focused on local journalism itself. And so how do we be sure that policies in this arena are going to support that diversity of voices in the journalism space that has been so valuable to the public? And then finally, public interest. And I will say on the innovation side, only the EU directive and one state law, state policy, New Jersey, in the states, actually spoke at all about being forward looking and the innovation side of technology and where that might lead us in the future. On the public interest side, all of the talk is about serving the public. And there were references to the public in there. But what was unclear was how these steps actually do a better job of getting the news and information to the public, especially thinking about the ways that the public is getting information, the diversity of producers of journalism that the public is turning to, including oftentimes many smaller individual journalism producers that the public has come to trust and rely on. The third policy area, which we are just in the early stages of now, so I’m just going to give you sort of a touch of the framework that we’re using, is in the AI policy space. And here there’s so much policy being talked about, being enacted, many are not actually law, can be enforced legally at this point. But very, very few in this space talk about journalism or really the news information space directly at all. But if we know about what’s happening with AI and where the digital landscape more broadly, there very much is indirect and in the end direct relationship with the way AI policy can and likely would affect the digital news landscape. So thinking about those things inside these other policies is really important before they get passed and too far down the line. How can it affect journalists’ ability to make use of the benefits of technology while also safeguarding against the risks? And then how do these policies work across state and national and country lines? So this is the framework in general, and I’m not going to go through this in detail because I want to have time for questions. But one, again, we’re starting with, okay, what’s the range of the kind of policies that are out there? And you can see here there are many that create a committee or an agency. Okay, do those committee or agencies have somebody from the journalism sector to play a role, to be a part of that? Do they take information integrity into account? Those that focus on deep fakes, synthetic content, this is one where we look at, okay, what’s the impact on journalists and their reporting? There’s a lot of good that can be had by having some sort of policies in place around deep fakes, but how does that resonate with the way journalists, some of what the journalists need to do, especially in unsafe areas, to be able to get their information out there? What labels? How do labeling these kind of things have public relevance? If you think about watermarks. CGPA was up here last week. There’s a lot of good in that kind of identity inside content, especially that’s AI-driven. But what does it mean to the public? We’ve done a lot of research and actually have started a research working group that’s global on this topic specifically to try to help make sense of what the research says about the public response to labeling, to not labeling, and how are there ways that journalists and others can make use of labels while actually fostering public trust with technology and with their work, as opposed to further diminishing it. There’s the focus on algorithmic bias and discrimination, and one of the things that’s important in this area of policy I’ll just mention as an example is that in that and the frontier model, there’s a lot of liability that goes on the user. That can be the public. It can be companies. It can also be the journalist that’s using it. It’s very important to think about who that user space may be and are there ways that the policy would want to define that and make sure that that is very clear in terms of who can be liable for content if there’s some sort of negative usage effect that comes out of it. Then comprehensive regulation. Again, we’re just in the beginning stages of this analysis and I will look forward to sharing it when the team is done. I’m just going to close with a couple more pieces of data that get to the public side of all this because ultimately this is about safeguarding an independent press and a diverse news media is about serving the public in the digital information space. It’s really important as we all delve deep into policy deliberation and making decisions that we don’t forget about the public that we’re saying we’re serving. How does the public think about journalism, about the ways that they can get informed today? That has been greatly expanded inside the digital landscape today. You can see here from this data, these are the four countries that we did this survey in, that there’s great value that the public places on journalism and the role that it plays in society. That really cut across the board. But we also see in the data that the public has a very broad definition of who can be producers of journalism today. It may be somebody inside an organization. It may be an individual who’s working on their own or doing their own work. What came through in the follow-up focus group discussions that we had is that it’s mission-driven. It’s guided by principles. It’s all of those elements that we think about of journalism, but it doesn’t necessarily have to be a news operation. So when we think about policy and for putting implications of policy in a space, how does all that work when we’re thinking about policy? And then finally, we can see that people are going to individuals that they consider journalists for their content today. And this is the final one, which is to also remember as we’re doing these policies that both the journalists, the journalism producers, and the public see technology as critically important in their ability to produce the news, to gather it, to disseminate it, and also to get informed. So again, coming back to these policy questions of how do we then do the best job of enabling the benefits and the needs in this space while also guarding against the potential harms. Quick wrap-up of the questions that we suggest you keep in mind. These are for journalism policies specifically, but they really carry through in a little bit of a nuanced way for all digital policy. And all in all, what’s most important is that in this critical policy space that policymakers, technology companies, media companies, journalism producers, researchers, civil societies actually work together to have really thorough conversations that are driven by data, a seeking of knowledge that keep the public interest in mind to be able to keep up with changing technology and determine how best to mitigate the risks while enabling the benefits. Thank you. And I’d be happy to take questions. You can sign up for our newsletter here, follow us, different places, the website here. Any questions?

Audience: Yeah, thank you so much. I’ve got two questions. First one relating to your, well, both actually relating to your sample choices of your first study that I think 31 countries you had covered. I was a little surprised that you, in the European Union, you took in four individual member states rather than the EU as a whole, because I think most of the aspects covered are now by the DSA, are covered by the Digital Services Act. So these laws, the national laws, have mostly become obsolete. And the second question is, to put it directly, what is the point of having really established autocracies among the sample, where it’s obvious and clear that they will use any excuse to control the information sphere and to use laws against disinformation to control, yeah, to exercise control. So what’s the point of having that? That is just, to me, obvious. And what conclusions can we draw from that?

Amy Mitchell: Yeah, those are two great questions. Thank you. On the EU, and I can share more on the methodology offstage, but the EU Online Safety Act is the one that was in place, and that was actually broader and didn’t talk directly about fake news. It talked about online safety. What we looked at instead were specific country policies that related directly to fake news or illegal content online, as opposed to broader online safety. We have a whole footnote in there in our methodology on that specific decision, but it’s a good question. And really, it’s also about examples. So the CNTI, Center for News Technology Information, does not advocate or call out for a specific policy. And what this is doing is saying, what’s the range of what’s out there, and how can we learn from it when we look at that, as opposed to commenting very specifically on one particular policy or another. But there is a whole methodology that does go into the detail on that decision and the timing of when we had the cutoff for those selections. On the autocracies, good question. One, they’re countries. They have people that live in them that get affected by the laws. We should care. That’s number one. Number two is, as I was mentioning earlier, there are so many policies that carry impact from one country to the next, whether it’s copycatting, and we saw that there was a policy that was done in a very well-intended, proactive way inside a democratic country that got then pulled by India to use for information control. So it’s also important to think about the ways that policy can be taken by another entity and used for ill service when it comes to the information landscape. But it’s also something, especially if we’re here at the UN and IGF talking about collaboration and how do we really have supportive environments to be aware of what’s happening in other countries. Do we have time for one more?

Audience: Hello. Thank you so much. That was super interesting. I specifically appreciate that you brought in that we should look more at the public perspective of this and serving, and the people we’re actually trying to serve. And so I was wondering, because these policies, especially disinformation, they get so tricky with the definitions, as you mentioned. I was wondering if you would recommend that actually countries should also put more emphasis on the demand side of disinformation. So why do people maybe believe disinformation? Why do people engage with disinformation? And why is it so easy for them to look at that? And I know that, for example, in Sweden, there’s this psychological defense agency by the government that kind of tries to prepare the population a little better how to engage with disinformation, how to recognize it. And I was just wondering if that would be a different approach to look at that more in terms of policy.

Amy Mitchell: Thank you for the question. It’s certainly an important element of it, right, is what is the public doing with all this content. There is actually a fair amount of research, and there’s a lot that actually shows the disinformation campaigns don’t have a whole lot of impact on what people actually believe or don’t believe, but that people’s own behavior and where they’re choosing to go can have that. One of the biggest things that we see, though, and this was some research I did back in the days that I was at Pew, is that what the public would categorize as disinformation can vary greatly, right? And so we have clear evidence to see that the way that the public would say, well, that’s disinformation, and our data show, at least in this one study we did, that there are very much alignments to one’s political thinking, to the kinds of sources you turn to. That’s a broader societal question, too, right? So I think your question comes back to the content moderation slide that I showed, which is articulating what’s the goal of the policy, and what’s the goal of the information landscape. I mean, it’s not going to be perfect. We’ve never had a perfect information landscape. So what is the goal, and then what are the best mechanisms to put in place that do the best job of reaching that, as close as we can get, without other unneeded risks and harms that can be brought into place? It’s a really tricky balancing act. It’s an area that CNTI plans to spend more time examining in the coming year. Thank you all. My time is up. Thank you.

Agreement points

Importance of addressing public perspective in disinformation policy

Speakers

– Amy Mitchell
– Audience

Arguments

Both journalists and public see technology as critically important for news production and consumption

Question about whether countries should focus more on demand side of disinformation – why people believe and engage with it

Summary

Both speakers recognized the critical importance of understanding and addressing the public’s role in information consumption, with Mitchell emphasizing technology’s importance to both producers and consumers, and the audience member suggesting focus on why people engage with disinformation

Topics

Content policy | Online education | Digital access

Need for alternative approaches to disinformation beyond content restriction

Speakers

– Amy Mitchell
– Audience

Arguments

Most policies failed to clearly articulate how they would better serve public information needs

Suggestion that psychological defense approaches, like Sweden’s agency, could be alternative policy approaches

Summary

Both speakers implicitly agreed that current content-focused approaches are insufficient, with Mitchell noting policies fail to serve public needs and the audience member proposing psychological defense mechanisms as alternatives

Topics

Content policy | Online education | Capacity development

Similar viewpoints

Both recognize that the public’s perspective and behavior are central to understanding and addressing information challenges, whether in defining journalism or in consuming/believing information

Speakers

– Amy Mitchell
– Audience

Arguments

Public places great value on journalism’s role in society but has broad definitions of who can be journalism producers

Question about whether countries should focus more on demand side of disinformation – why people believe and engage with it

Topics

Content policy | Cultural diversity | Online education

Unexpected consensus

Value of studying autocratic policies despite predictable outcomes

Speakers

– Amy Mitchell
– Audience

Arguments

Response that autocratic policies matter because they affect real people and can be copied by other countries for harmful purposes

Challenge regarding the value of including autocracies in policy analysis when their control intentions are obvious

Explanation

While the audience member initially challenged the value of studying autocratic policies, Mitchell’s response about cross-border policy copying and real human impact created an unexpected area of understanding about the interconnected nature of global policy effects

Topics

Human rights principles | Freedom of the press | Legal and regulatory

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion showed limited but meaningful consensus around the importance of public-centered approaches to information policy and the recognition that current content-focused policies may be insufficient

Consensus level

Moderate consensus on methodological approaches and public engagement importance, with constructive dialogue rather than disagreement on policy analysis scope. The consensus suggests a shared understanding that effective information policy requires deeper consideration of public behavior and cross-border implications.

Different viewpoints

Methodological approach to including autocracies in policy analysis

Speakers

– Amy Mitchell
– Audience

Arguments

Response that autocratic policies matter because they affect real people and can be copied by other countries for harmful purposes

Challenge regarding the value of including autocracies in policy analysis when their control intentions are obvious

Summary

The audience member questioned the analytical value of including established autocracies in policy studies since their intention to control information is predictable, while Mitchell argued that these policies matter because they affect real people and can be adopted by other countries for harmful purposes.

Topics

Freedom of the press | Human rights principles | Legal and regulatory

EU policy analysis methodology – individual member states vs. EU-wide legislation

Speakers

– Amy Mitchell
– Audience

Arguments

Study of 32 fake news policies across 31 countries showed greater risk to journalistic independence than protection of information space

Question about including individual EU member states rather than EU-wide Digital Services Act in the study sample

Summary

The audience member questioned why the study included four individual EU member states rather than examining the EU-wide Digital Services Act, suggesting national laws may be obsolete, while Mitchell defended the methodology based on focusing on specific fake news policies rather than broader online safety legislation.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Jurisdiction | Content policy

Unexpected differences

Research methodology and scope decisions

Speakers

– Amy Mitchell
– Audience

Arguments

Cross-border policy impacts require thinking beyond national boundaries

Question about including individual EU member states rather than EU-wide Digital Services Act in the study sample

Explanation

The disagreement about research methodology was unexpected because it revealed different perspectives on how to analyze transnational policy frameworks. While Mitchell emphasized cross-border impacts and the value of examining diverse policy approaches, the audience member focused on regulatory efficiency and questioned the relevance of studying potentially obsolete national policies.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Jurisdiction | Content policy

Overall assessment

Summary

The disagreements were primarily methodological rather than substantive, focusing on research approach and scope rather than fundamental policy principles

Disagreement level

Low to moderate disagreement level. The disagreements were constructive and focused on research methodology and analytical approaches rather than core policy goals. Both speakers appeared to share concerns about protecting press freedom and serving public interests, but differed on analytical frameworks and research scope. These methodological disagreements actually enhanced the discussion by raising important questions about how to effectively study and compare international policies.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both recognize that the public’s perspective and behavior are central to understanding and addressing information challenges, whether in defining journalism or in consuming/believing information

Speakers

– Amy Mitchell
– Audience

Arguments

Public places great value on journalism’s role in society but has broad definitions of who can be journalism producers

Question about whether countries should focus more on demand side of disinformation – why people believe and engage with it

Topics

Content policy | Cultural diversity | Online education

Key takeaways

Current journalism policy landscape is unprecedented in scope and complexity, with 50% of journalists experiencing government censorship and global press freedom at 1993 levels

Well-intentioned policies often create unintended consequences that harm journalistic independence and diversity rather than protecting the information space

Critical policy analysis framework should examine definitional language, oversight authority, diversity impacts, public service goals, and cross-border effects

Fake news policies across 31 countries showed most (25 of 32) failed to define key terms, leaving interpretation to government authorities, with 14 policies placing direct government control

Media remuneration policies vary dramatically in defining digital content usage and compensation, often favoring large outlets over diverse smaller operations

AI policies rarely address journalism directly but have significant indirect impacts on the digital news landscape through liability placement and content regulation

Public has broad definition of journalism producers beyond traditional news organizations, valuing mission-driven, principle-guided content creators

Technology is viewed as critically important by both journalists and public for news production, gathering, dissemination, and consumption

Policy impacts cross national borders through copycatting and international digital infrastructure, requiring global coordination

Need for collaborative approach involving policymakers, technology companies, media organizations, researchers, and civil society in data-driven policy discussions

Resolutions and action items

CNTI plans to spend more time in the coming year examining the relationship between public behavior and disinformation policy effectiveness

CNTI is developing a research working group focused on public response to AI content labeling and watermarking

CNTI will complete and share analysis of AI policy impacts on journalism when the team finishes their comprehensive study

Recommendation for policymakers to articulate clear goals for what the digital information landscape should look like before implementing content moderation policies

Unresolved issues

How to balance defining journalism and fake news in policy without creating tools for government control of information

What the optimal end goal should be for content moderation policies and digital information landscapes

How to ensure AI policies adequately protect journalists while enabling technological benefits

Whether demand-side approaches to disinformation (focusing on why people believe false information) should be prioritized over supply-side regulation

How to create consistent cross-border policy frameworks that respect national sovereignty while addressing global digital challenges

How to ensure media remuneration policies effectively serve public information needs rather than just supporting large media organizations

What constitutes appropriate liability distribution between AI platforms, users, and content creators including journalists

Suggested compromises

Balancing the need for policy definitions with safeguards against government overreach by carefully considering who has oversight authority

Including diverse stakeholders (journalism sector representatives) in AI policy committees and agencies rather than excluding media perspectives

Focusing on psychological defense and media literacy approaches alongside regulatory measures to address disinformation

Creating policy frameworks that enable technological benefits while implementing specific safeguards against identified risks

Developing policies that support both large and small journalism operations rather than favoring one over the other

It’s not clear within the policy conversation space that we’ve really actually done a very good job at all of articulating what would the digital landscape look like if this content moderation policy that we’re talking about gets put in what is it? That’s bad. That’s out. What is it? That’s good. That’s in what’s the mix? There’s always going to be a mix of content in there. So really taking the time to think about the ultimate goals there

Speaker

Amy Mitchell

Reason

This comment is deeply insightful because it exposes a fundamental flaw in policy-making: the lack of clear vision for desired outcomes. Rather than focusing on technical mechanisms, Mitchell highlights that policymakers haven’t adequately defined what success looks like in the information landscape.

Impact

This observation reframes the entire discussion from ‘how to regulate’ to ‘what are we trying to achieve.’ It introduces a meta-level critique that challenges the foundation of current policy approaches and sets up the framework for more thoughtful policy design throughout her presentation.

What’s the point of having really established autocracies among the sample, where it’s obvious and clear that they will use any excuse to control the information sphere and to use laws against disinformation to control, yeah, to exercise control. So what’s the point of having that? That is just, to me, obvious.

Speaker

Audience member

Reason

This question is provocative because it challenges the methodology and underlying assumptions of comparative policy analysis. It forces consideration of whether studying authoritarian approaches has value when their intent to control information is predetermined.

Impact

This question shifts the discussion toward the interconnectedness of global policy and the practical implications of policy migration across different governmental systems. It leads Mitchell to articulate how well-intentioned democratic policies can be co-opted by authoritarian regimes, adding a crucial geopolitical dimension to the conversation.

I was wondering if you would recommend that actually countries should also put more emphasis on the demand side of disinformation. So why do people maybe believe disinformation? Why do people engage with disinformation? And why is it so easy for them to look at that?

Speaker

Audience member

Reason

This comment is thought-provoking because it fundamentally shifts the focus from supply-side regulation (controlling content) to demand-side intervention (addressing why people consume misinformation). It suggests a completely different policy approach focused on media literacy and psychological factors.

Impact

This question introduces a new dimension to the policy discussion, moving beyond content regulation to consider human behavior and education. It prompts Mitchell to acknowledge the complexity of public perception and the subjective nature of what constitutes ‘disinformation,’ adding nuance to the entire framework.

We also see in the data that the public has a very broad definition of who can be producers of journalism today. It may be somebody inside an organization. It may be an individual who’s working on their own or doing their own work… it’s mission-driven. It’s guided by principles. It’s all of those elements that we think about of journalism, but it doesn’t necessarily have to be a news operation.

Speaker

Amy Mitchell

Reason

This observation is crucial because it highlights the disconnect between traditional policy frameworks (which assume institutional journalism) and contemporary reality (where individual creators are considered journalists by the public). It challenges fundamental assumptions about who deserves protection under journalism policies.

Impact

This insight forces a reconsideration of how journalism protection policies should be structured. It suggests that current policy frameworks may be inadequate for protecting the diverse ecosystem of information producers that the public actually relies on, fundamentally challenging traditional approaches to media regulation.

There is actually a fair amount of research, and there’s a lot that actually shows the disinformation campaigns don’t have a whole lot of impact on what people actually believe or don’t believe, but that people’s own behavior and where they’re choosing to go can have that… what the public would categorize as disinformation can vary greatly… there are very much alignments to one’s political thinking, to the kinds of sources you turn to.

Speaker

Amy Mitchell

Reason

This comment is particularly insightful because it challenges the entire premise underlying much disinformation policy – that external disinformation campaigns are the primary problem. Instead, it suggests that individual choice and political bias are more significant factors, which would require entirely different policy approaches.

Impact

This observation fundamentally questions the effectiveness of content-focused disinformation policies and suggests that the problem may be more about political polarization and media consumption habits than external manipulation. It adds significant complexity to the policy discussion by suggesting that the problem may not be solvable through traditional regulatory approaches.

Overall assessment

These key comments collectively transformed what could have been a technical policy discussion into a fundamental examination of assumptions underlying digital governance. Mitchell’s insights about the lack of clear policy goals and the evolving nature of journalism challenged traditional regulatory frameworks, while audience questions pushed the conversation toward more nuanced considerations of global policy interconnectedness and human behavioral factors. The discussion evolved from presenting research findings to questioning the foundational premises of current policy approaches, ultimately suggesting that effective digital governance requires a more sophisticated understanding of public behavior, global policy dynamics, and the changing nature of information production and consumption. The comments created a progression from ‘what policies exist’ to ‘what should policies actually try to achieve’ to ‘are current approaches fundamentally flawed,’ resulting in a much more critical and comprehensive examination of digital policy challenges.

What would the digital landscape look like if content moderation policies get implemented – what content should be out vs. in, and what should the mix be?

Speaker

Amy Mitchell

Explanation

This is a fundamental question about policy goals that Mitchell identified as not being well-articulated in current policy discussions, which is critical for effective content moderation policy design

How do AI policies affect journalists’ ability to use technology benefits while safeguarding against risks, especially across different jurisdictions?

Speaker

Amy Mitchell

Explanation

This represents an ongoing research area that CNTI is just beginning to explore, focusing on the indirect impacts of AI policy on journalism

How can labeling and watermarking systems foster public trust with technology and journalism rather than diminish it?

Speaker

Amy Mitchell

Explanation

Mitchell mentioned they’ve started a global research working group on this topic to understand public response to labeling systems, which is crucial for effective implementation

How should liability be defined for AI users, including journalists, in frontier model policies?

Speaker

Amy Mitchell

Explanation

This is an important policy consideration as liability often falls on users, and it needs clarification for different user categories including journalists

What is the point of including autocracies in policy analysis samples when their control of information is obvious?

Speaker

Audience member

Explanation

This question challenges the methodology and value of including authoritarian regimes in comparative policy studies

Should countries focus more on the demand side of disinformation – why people believe and engage with it – rather than just content control?

Speaker

Audience member

Explanation

This suggests an alternative policy approach focusing on public education and psychological preparedness rather than content restriction

How can policies better serve the public’s actual information-seeking behaviors and their broad definition of journalism producers?

Speaker

Amy Mitchell

Explanation

Mitchell emphasized the need to understand how the public actually gets information today, including from individual journalists and diverse sources, to inform policy design

What are the best mechanisms to balance reaching information landscape goals while avoiding unintended risks and harms?

Speaker

Amy Mitchell

Explanation

This represents the core challenge of policy design that Mitchell identified as requiring more examination in the coming year

Summary

This discussion launched a research project funded by the Internet Society Foundation and executed by the Internet Governance Project at Georgia Tech, focusing on the governance of digital identifiers and online identity systems. Upasana Hembram from the Internet Society Foundation explained that digital interactions are fundamentally built on trust and identity authentication, which profoundly influence how transparent, secure, and trustworthy the Internet can be. The research examines how private organizations and government agencies interact in the global governance landscape to deploy online identity systems, particularly studying three specific identifier systems: WebPKI, Legal Entity Identifiers (LEI), and Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI).

Dr. Milton Mueller outlined how digital identifiers require systems of trust and authority, with cyberspace changing traditional authority relationships in new ways. He discussed RPKI as a method for authenticating routing announcements and IP address block ownership, noting government involvement such as the U.S. Federal Communications Commission’s consideration of requiring RPKI implementation. The WebPKI system was highlighted through the European Commission’s EIDAS initiative, which created tension with existing browser-based trust hierarchies controlled by companies like Google, Apple, and Microsoft.

Vagisha Srivastava presented research on Legal Entity Identifiers, which uniquely emerged from a top-down approach by the Financial Stability Board and G20 following the 2008 financial crisis. LEIs address transparency and verification needs for financial entities in cross-border transactions, though the system faces challenges with certificate lapses due to insufficient user incentives for renewal. Benjamin Akinmoyeje provided perspective from Africa, discussing the continent’s rapid digital identity initiatives including World Bank projects and African Union digital transformation strategies, while highlighting concerns about interoperability across different national systems. The research aims to enhance understanding of how different policy decisions within various jurisdictions impact the global Internet governance landscape.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Launch of Digital Identity Research Project**: Introduction of a new research initiative funded by the Internet Society Foundation and executed by the Internet Governance Project at Georgia Tech to study governing online identities and digital identifier systems

– **Three Core Identity Systems Under Study**: Examination of RPKI (Resource Public Key Infrastructure) for routing security, WebPKI for web authentication including EU’s EIDAS controversy with browser manufacturers, and LEI (Legal Entity Identifiers) for financial entity verification

– **Government vs. Technical Community Authority**: Analysis of how state authority intersects with Internet community self-governance, including examples like the FCC’s consideration of RPKI requirements and the European Commission’s clash with existing browser-based trust hierarchies

– **Legal Entity Identifiers (LEI) Challenges**: Discussion of the top-down creation of LEI by financial regulators post-2008 crisis, its mandatory use for cross-border transactions, and the problem of certificate lapses due to lack of user incentives for renewal

– **Global South Perspective on Digital Identity**: Presentation of Africa’s digital identity landscape, including massive inclusion efforts (500+ million people lacking verifiable identity), various continental initiatives, and concerns about interoperability across different national systems

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion serves as a launch event for a comprehensive research project examining how digital identity systems are governed globally. The goal is to understand the complex interplay between technical communities, government agencies, and private actors in managing online identity verification systems, with implications for Internet governance, trust, security, and global digital inclusion.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintains an academic and informative tone throughout, characterized by scholarly presentation of research objectives and technical concepts. The tone is collaborative and forward-looking, with speakers building upon each other’s presentations to create a comprehensive overview of the research scope. There’s an underlying sense of urgency about the importance of understanding these “background” systems that are fundamental to digital trust, though the presentation remains measured and analytical rather than alarmist.

Speakers

– **Dr. Milton Mueller**: Internet Governance Project at Georgia Tech (project executor/researcher)

– **Upasana Hembram**: Internet Society Foundation (foundation representative)

– **Dr. Karim Farhat**: Part of the research project, based in the United States, working on legal entity identifiers

– **Vagisha Srivastava**: PhD student at Georgia Tech, handling research on legal entity identifiers (LEIs)

– **Benjamin Akinmoyeje**: Involved in ICANN from Africa perspective, working with digital identifier policy, based in Nigeria

– **Michael Palage**: (mentioned in speakers list but role/expertise not clearly specified in transcript)

Additional speakers:

– **Dr. Johannes Sedlmeyer**: (mentioned multiple times but role/expertise not specified in the provided transcript portion)

# Summary: Launch of Digital Identity Governance Research Project

## Introduction and Project Overview

This discussion marked the formal launch of a research initiative examining the governance of digital identifiers and online identity systems. The project is funded by the Internet Society Foundation and executed by the Internet Governance Project at Georgia Tech, bringing together researchers from multiple continents to address digital identity governance.

Upasana Hembram from the Internet Society Foundation opened the discussion by establishing that digital interactions are built upon trust and identity authentication. She emphasized that digital identity systems, despite their crucial role in today’s digital economy, remain an understudied area of Internet governance with profound implications for privacy, security, and trust. Hembram argued that these systems should be viewed as instruments of public trust rather than mere background technologies.

## Theoretical Framework

Dr. Milton Mueller provided the theoretical foundation by addressing fundamental questions about authority and trust in cyberspace. He explained that objects in cyberspace cannot be identified without proper identification and authentication systems, making digital identity systems essential infrastructure.

Mueller highlighted how cyberspace is changing authority relationships and posed critical questions about where authority resides in digital identity systems and who can be trusted when authenticating online identity. The research framework focuses on three specific identifier systems: Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI), Web Public Key Infrastructure (WebPKI), and Legal Entity Identifiers (LEI).

## Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI)

Mueller presented RPKI as a method for authenticating routing announcements and verifying ownership of IP address blocks. He noted that the U.S. Federal Communications Commission initially considered requiring RPKI implementation among Internet service providers but ultimately backed away from this requirement due to questions about their authority in this domain.

The research team identified RPKI implementation speed and effectiveness as key areas of investigation, particularly regarding the degree to which governments become involved in either requiring or using RPKI.

## Web Public Key Infrastructure and eIDAS

The WebPKI system was discussed through the European Commission’s Electronic Identification, Authentication and Trust Services (eIDAS) initiative, which created tension with existing browser-based trust hierarchies. Mueller described this as a political clash between governmental authority and established technical community governance structures, where the European Commission attempted to intervene in web authentication processes controlled by major technology companies including Google, Apple, and Microsoft.

## Legal Entity Identifiers: Regulatory Approach

Vagisha Srivastava presented detailed research on Legal Entity Identifiers, which emerged from regulatory mandates following the 2008 financial crisis. The LEI system was created by the Financial Stability Board and G20 to address transparency and verification problems in cross-border financial transactions.

Srivastava explained the LEI governance structure: the Financial Stability Board established the Regulatory Oversight Committee (ROC), which oversees the Global Legal Entity Identifier Foundation (GLEIF), which in turn manages local operating units that issue LEI codes to legal entities.

Her research revealed critical challenges with certificate lapses due to insufficient user incentives for renewal. Financial organizations often fail to maintain current LEI certificates, undermining the system’s verification purposes. This led to the insight that regulatory mandates alone are insufficient – effective systems require user incentives and infrastructural integration for ongoing effectiveness.

## African Perspectives

Benjamin Akinmoyeje began presenting on Africa’s digital identity landscape, noting that over 500 million people in Africa lack verifiable legal identities, creating barriers to accessing essential services. He mentioned multiple initiatives developing across the continent, including the World Bank’s ID for Development project and the African Union’s digital transformation strategy.

*Note: The transcript appears to become incomplete during Benjamin’s presentation and becomes unclear toward the end, limiting the available information about his full contribution to the discussion.*

## Project Significance

The discussion positioned digital identity governance as a critical but understudied component of Internet governance. The research project aims to examine how private organizations and government agencies interact within the global governance landscape to deploy online identity systems, addressing the complex reality where traditional boundaries between public and private authority are increasingly blurred.

The project’s multi-stakeholder approach and focus on three distinct identifier systems provides concrete case studies for examining broader questions about authority, trust, and governance in digital environments. The inclusion of Global South perspectives ensures the research addresses questions of inclusion and digital equity alongside technical governance challenges.

## Conclusion

This launch discussion established the scope and methodology of a research project examining digital identity governance through three specific case studies. The conversation highlighted the complexity of digital identity systems and demonstrated the need for understanding how different governance approaches operate across various contexts and jurisdictions. The research represents an effort to fill a significant gap in understanding how these fundamental systems are governed and their implications for the broader Internet ecosystem.

Dr. Milton Mueller: This is a session on digital identifiers, and it represents a launch of a research project that is being funded by the Internet Society Foundation and executed by the Internet Governance Project at Georgia Tech. And I want to begin by introducing Upasana, who is with the Internet Society Foundation, and she will introduce you to the foundation and the way they are supporting research.

Upasana Hembram: Hello, everyone. Good morning to everyone present in Oslo. Good afternoon. Good evening to all those joining virtually. Thank you all for gathering here to attend this session about launching this study on governing online identities. As you all know, the fundamental of our digital interaction these days is essentially built on trust, and a lot of it is dependent on authenticating identity, and this involves several complex technical systems and governance arrangements that are constantly developed in order to assign proof and verify identity. And since these identity systems profoundly influence how transparent, secure, and trustworthy the Internet can be, I don’t think they should be viewed as merely technologies that run in the background, but as a fundamental instrument of public trust. At Internet Society and the Internet Society Foundation, our vision is an Internet for everyone, and we strongly believe that the Internet should be open, secure, safe, trustworthy, and community-centered. Through our various grant programs at the Internet Society Foundation, we have been championing organizations and changemakers who have been working towards this mission, and specifically through our research grant program, we encourage experimentation, innovation, and explorations that can help us deepen our understanding of the critical functions that keep the Internet running, and also help ideate various solutions that can strengthen and safeguard the core principles of an open and trustworthy Internet. So we’ve partnered with the Internet Governance Project at Georgia Tech to do exactly that. The digital identity system, despite the emerging lack of trust in today’s digital world, happens to be an understudied area of Internet governance, but it has deep implications for privacy, security, and trust in today’s Internet economy. And amidst this evolving geopolitical landscape, this study, which has been supported by the Internet Society Foundation’s research grant, will examine how private actor-led organizations and government agencies interact in the global governance landscape to deploy online identity. And our hope with this study is that it can enhance our understanding of the dynamics that are involved, and what that means for the broader Internet ecosystem. This study particularly looks at WebPKI, LEI, and RPKIs, which will be discussed in greater detail by the presenters today. And while these don’t make newsflash, like eyeball-grabbing headlines, they are very critical in shaping some of the most foundational aspects of digital interactions today via trust and safety. Now, why should somebody care about this study, and how does it relate to Internet governance? This study takes a closer look at identity regimes across different jurisdictional contexts, and it sheds light on how the effects of these different policy options within these jurisdictions have implications on the global Internet governance landscape. The insights from these different case studies can help us understand why some decisions were made, how they were made, how they were implemented, and perhaps what are some of the outcomes that they produce, which will eventually help us, especially key decision makers in government and policy, public policy, make decisions on how to allocate resources around investment decisions, et cetera. Lastly, I would like to close off by saying that the future of Internet governance does not mean to be built solely on laws and regulations. It should be through open, multi-stakeholder models that truly reflect the public interest, and this study tries to go deep into the governance of online identity and does exactly that.

Dr. Milton Mueller: Thank you. Let’s go back now to, by the way, that’s Karim Farhat up there. He’s in the United States, and he’s part of the project. So let me just begin by introducing the basic topic. You see these blobs on the left, and that kind of represents objects in cyberspace, which could be any number of things. It could be servers, it could be machines, it could be devices, it could be people. And in cyberspace, you simply do not know what these things are without some kind of a identification and authentication system. So we’re studying that process, and we’re looking at it, how do I change the slides? Like that? Next slide. Okay. So one of the important things about digital identifiers, and they could be, again, for anything, is that they require some kind of system of trust and authority. And the interesting thing about cyberspace is that it is changing the authority relationships in new ways. So where does the authority reside? Who can you trust when you’re authenticating online identity? And so that is three different identifier systems that we have chosen to study. One of them is the RPKI, which is about trusting routing announcements. Another is about the WebPKI. And another is about legal entity identifiers, which is a new system of identifiers being developed by a new international organization. Now, I’m going to talk a little bit about RPKI. We don’t have a lot of time. Obviously, this is a very complex topic. But RPKI is a way of authenticating routing announcements, or actually authenticating who actually is the legitimate holder of an IP address block. The Regional Internet Registry has issued certificates, digital certificates, that allow you to authenticate this. And there’s been some controversy about how quickly this is being implemented and how effective it is as a method of ensuring routing security. And so one of the things that interests us is the degree to which governments get involved in either requiring or using RPKI. And so one of the things we’ll be looking at is a recent U.S. Federal Communications Commission proceeding in which the FCC, for a while, thought it was going to intervene and start requiring RPKI among Internet service providers in the United States, and ultimately backed off and decided it didn’t have the authority to do that. But that’s one of these ways in which state authority is mixing with the The EIDAS is another area in which we will be looking closely at an intersection of government power and Internet community self-governance. This is the web authentication process and recently the European Commission tries to intervene in this by saying we’re going to create a European system of digital certificates and we will decide who you can trust and they clashed with the existing platform-based trust hierarchy primarily centered in the browser manufacturers, that is to say Google, Apple, Microsoft and so on and there was a big political clash over that and so we’re going to be looking at that controversy in detail. And now I’m going to turn it over to, we don’t have time to go into all this, organizational identity. I’ll turn it over to Vagisha Srivastava who is a PhD student at Georgia Tech and she’s handling part of the research on legal identity identifiers.

Vagisha Srivastava: I and Karim, my colleague, who’s online, we are looking at the legal entity identifiers which is kind of a unique choice in our study because this is one of those organizational entity that was not created by the technical community, bottoms up, but it was a top-down approach created by the FSB, the financial standards board in the G20. So one of the problems that led to the creation of this was identified post-financial crisis where a lack of transparency and verification needed for, you know, financial entities was missing. So there was an asymmetric information problem that led to a market failure where especially for cross-border transactions, verification and authentication was very, very difficult. So between 2008 and 2012, G20 convened and they decided that we need an entity identifier norm and regulation which led to the creation of GLEIF, we can go to the next slide. And LEIs basically fill that gap. They provide a standardization requirement for financial entities so that they can be verified which go through a list of procedures and check and then they can participate in local transactions and also cross-border transactions. It’s mandatory for cross-border transactions but not so much for if you want to make domestic transactions. So they did improve transparency and risk mechanisms. So you can see the FSB led to RAC which led to the creation of GLEIF which is like a non-profit entity that then leads to the creation of local operating units that issue LEIs in domestic markets. You can go to the next slide. The current status remains that the uptake is huge, one because it’s compulsory for any entity that wants to participate in cross-border transactions. But one of the problems that we observed was that there’s a lot of lapse certificate which basically means that these financial organizations don’t have the incentive to keep on renewing which means that the information that is associated with these identities gets lapsed and therefore it’s not current which then leads to a problem which we began with that you cannot verify or authenticate these entities with credible information. So LEIs in our cases, and I’ll stop just here, which is LEIs in our case reveal something very important which is global standards need not just regulatory pressure but user incentives and infrastructural integration for them to keep on going and that’s what we are focusing on within this study.

Benjamin Akinmoyeje: Okay. So next we want to bring up Benjamin Akinmoyeje Akinmoye from Nigeria. Benjamin Akinmoyeje is not a researcher for us but he is somebody involved in ICANN from the standpoint of Africa and so he’s been working with digital identifier policy. Benjamin Akinmoyeje, can you talk about your perspective on this for about five minutes? Yes. Thank you very much. Can you hear me? We can hear you. Can you bring his picture up on the screen or is he not showing video? Oh. There we go. Okay. We got you. Yes. Is it possible for me to share my slide? I have a more detailed slide if you don’t mind. I don’t know whether the, yes, you can share your slides. Okay. Thank you. Do you see my screen?

Dr. Milton Mueller: No, we just see you which is perfectly fine. You look great. So.

Benjamin Akinmoyeje: Thank you. Good morning, everybody, and thank you for the opportunity to have me here. So I’m going to be talking about the relevance of digital identifier and the governance around it from the perspective of Global South and from someone living in Africa. So this space is really dynamic because of the enormous innovation going on for primarily for inclusion, access to services, and all of that. And in order to understand what is happening, at least I know that on the continent, statistics show that over 500 million people are yet to have some form of verifiable identity, legal IDs that they can build access to. So from that perspective, and then there’s this huge push for everybody to go online and there’s so much technology optimizing, you know. So there has been interesting projects on the continent. So when you look out some form of research around this, you’re going to find that World Bank has a big project going on, ID for Identification for Development, and it has like 49 countries already on board, and Rwanda and Nigeria are participants of this. And they are really going hard at this and getting more individuals registered, providing the guidelines so that we can have credible identifications that can work online as well. Then there’s this project, ID for Africa. This really goes across the continent, getting different national organizations responsible for either national identifiers like identification schemes to be on board. And then also African Union has their digital transformation strategy. And fundamental, foundational to this is the identifications, legal identification across different countries. So they give like a roadmap. Also regionally, like ECOWAS, you’ll find something like national biometric ID cards. So all of this, I’m just trying to show you how very rapidly moving these things are. Then on top of this, and you can see the motivation for this, because AFICTA, which is Africa Free Trade Agreement, is hoping to build essentially on digital innovations and how can we do trade across the continent. But the major concern is interoperability of this framework, because different countries talking to different vendors, different to get the ID. Benjamin Akinmoyejejamin Akinmoyeje, Dr. Karim Farhat, Vagisha Srivastava, Dr. Johannes Sedlmeyer, Dr. Johannes Sedlmeyer, Dr. Karim Farhat, Vagisha Srivastava, Dr. Johannes Sedlmeyer, Dr. Johannes Sedlmeyer, Dr. Johannes Sedlmeyer, Dr. Karim Farhat, Vagisha Srivastava, Dr. Johannes Sedlmeyer, Dr. Johannes Sedlmeyer, Dr. Karim Farhat, Vagisha Srivastava, Dr. Johannes Sedlmeyer, Dr. Johannes Sedlmeyer, Dr. Karim Farhat, Vagisha Srivastava, Dr. Johannes Sedlmeyer, Dr. Johannes Sedlmeyer, Dr. Karim Farhat, Vagisha Srivastava, Dr. Johannes Sedlmeyer, Dr. Johannes Sedlmeyer, Dr. Karim Farhat, Vagisha Srivastava, Dr. Johannes Sedlmeyer,

Dr. Karim Farhat: Dr. Johannes Sedlmeyer, Dr. Karim Farhat, Vagisha Srivastava, Dr. Johannes Sedlmeyer,

Michael Palage: Dr. Johannes Sedlmeyer, Dr. Karim Farhat, Vagisha Srivastava, Dr. Johannes Sedlmeyer, Dr. Johannes Sedlmeyer, Dr. Karim Farhat, Vagisha Srivastava, Dr. Johannes Sedlmeyer, Dr. Karim Farhat, Vagisha Srivastava, Dr. Johannes Sedlmeyer, Dr. Karim Farhat, Dr. Johannes Sedlmeyer, Dr. Karim Farhat, Dr. Karim Farhat, Dr. Karim Farhat, Dr. Karim Farhat,

Dr. Milton Mueller: Dr. Karim Farhat, Dr. Karim Farhat, Dr. Karim Farhat, Dr. Karim Farhat, Dr. Karim Farhat, Dr. Karim Farhat, Dr. Karim Farhat, Dr. Karim Farhat, Dr. Karim Farhat, Dr. Karim Farhat, Dr. Karim Farhat, Dr. Karim Farhat, Dr. Karim Farhat,

Agreement points

Digital identity systems require complex governance structures involving multiple stakeholders

Speakers

– Upasana Hembram
– Dr. Milton Mueller
– Vagisha Srivastava

Arguments

Future Internet governance should be built through open, multi-stakeholder models that reflect public interest rather than solely on laws and regulations

The study examines how private actor-led organizations and government agencies interact in global governance to deploy online identity

LEIs represent a unique top-down approach created by the FSB and G20, unlike technical community bottom-up systems

Summary

All speakers acknowledge that digital identity governance involves complex interactions between various stakeholders including governments, private organizations, and technical communities, requiring multi-stakeholder approaches rather than single-authority solutions

Topics

Digital identities | Legal and regulatory

Digital identity systems are fundamental infrastructure for trust and security online

Speakers

– Upasana Hembram
– Dr. Milton Mueller

Arguments

Objects in cyberspace cannot be identified without proper identification and authentication systems

Digital identity systems profoundly influence how transparent, secure, and trustworthy the Internet can be and should not be viewed as merely background technologies

Summary

Both speakers emphasize that digital identity systems are not just technical tools but fundamental infrastructure that determines the trustworthiness and security of the entire Internet ecosystem

Topics

Digital identities | Infrastructure

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers recognize the tension between top-down governmental/regulatory approaches and bottom-up technical community governance in digital identity systems, highlighting different models of authority and control

Speakers

– Dr. Milton Mueller
– Vagisha Srivastava

Arguments

There are clashes between government power and Internet community self-governance, as seen in the European Commission’s intervention in web authentication

LEIs represent a unique top-down approach created by the FSB and G20, unlike technical community bottom-up systems

Topics

Digital identities | Legal and regulatory

Both speakers identify implementation challenges in digital identity systems, emphasizing that successful deployment requires more than just regulatory mandates and must address practical issues like user incentives and system compatibility

Speakers

– Vagisha Srivastava
– Benjamin Akinmoyeje

Arguments

Global standards need regulatory pressure, user incentives, and infrastructural integration to remain effective

Interoperability remains a major concern as different countries work with different vendors for ID systems

Topics

Digital identities | Development

Unexpected consensus

Limitations of purely regulatory approaches to digital identity governance

Speakers

– Upasana Hembram
– Vagisha Srivastava
– Dr. Milton Mueller

Arguments

Future Internet governance should be built through open, multi-stakeholder models that reflect public interest rather than solely on laws and regulations

Global standards need regulatory pressure, user incentives, and infrastructural integration to remain effective

The FCC initially considered requiring RPKI among Internet service providers but ultimately backed off due to lack of authority

Explanation

Despite representing different perspectives (foundation, academic research, and policy analysis), all speakers converge on the view that regulatory approaches alone are insufficient for effective digital identity governance, requiring broader stakeholder engagement and practical implementation considerations

Topics

Digital identities | Legal and regulatory

Overall assessment

Summary

The speakers demonstrate strong consensus on the fundamental importance of digital identity systems as critical infrastructure, the need for multi-stakeholder governance approaches, and the limitations of purely regulatory solutions. They agree on the complexity of governance challenges and the need for balanced approaches between different authority models.

Consensus level

High level of consensus on core principles and challenges, with complementary rather than conflicting perspectives. This suggests a mature understanding of digital identity governance issues across different stakeholder communities, which could facilitate collaborative approaches to addressing the identified challenges in policy development and implementation.

Different viewpoints

Top-down vs. Bottom-up Governance Approaches

Speakers

– Upasana Hembram
– Vagisha Srivastava

Arguments

Future Internet governance should be built through open, multi-stakeholder models that reflect public interest rather than solely on laws and regulations

LEIs represent a unique top-down approach created by the FSB and G20, unlike technical community bottom-up systems

Summary

Hembram advocates for multi-stakeholder, bottom-up governance models, while Srivastava presents LEIs as an example of successful top-down regulatory approach, though she notes challenges with this model

Topics

Digital identities | Legal and regulatory

Unexpected differences

Effectiveness of Regulatory Mandates

Speakers

– Vagisha Srivastava
– Benjamin Akinmoyeje

Arguments

Global standards need regulatory pressure, user incentives, and infrastructural integration to remain effective

Multiple initiatives are rapidly developing across Africa including World Bank’s ID for Development project and African Union’s digital transformation strategy

Explanation

Srivastava’s research shows that regulatory mandates alone are insufficient (citing LEI certificate lapses), while Akinmoyeje presents multiple regulatory initiatives as positive developments, creating an implicit tension about the effectiveness of regulatory approaches

Topics

Digital identities | Legal and regulatory | Development

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion reveals subtle tensions between different governance philosophies – top-down regulatory approaches versus bottom-up technical community governance, and questions about the effectiveness of mandatory systems versus incentive-based approaches

Disagreement level

Low to moderate disagreement level. This was primarily a research presentation rather than a debate, so disagreements are more implicit and philosophical rather than direct confrontations. The implications suggest ongoing challenges in finding the right balance between regulatory oversight and technical community self-governance in digital identity systems

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers recognize the tension between top-down governmental/regulatory approaches and bottom-up technical community governance in digital identity systems, highlighting different models of authority and control

Speakers

– Dr. Milton Mueller
– Vagisha Srivastava

Arguments

There are clashes between government power and Internet community self-governance, as seen in the European Commission’s intervention in web authentication

LEIs represent a unique top-down approach created by the FSB and G20, unlike technical community bottom-up systems

Topics

Digital identities | Legal and regulatory

Both speakers identify implementation challenges in digital identity systems, emphasizing that successful deployment requires more than just regulatory mandates and must address practical issues like user incentives and system compatibility

Speakers

– Vagisha Srivastava
– Benjamin Akinmoyeje

Arguments

Global standards need regulatory pressure, user incentives, and infrastructural integration to remain effective

Interoperability remains a major concern as different countries work with different vendors for ID systems

Topics

Digital identities | Development

Key takeaways

Digital identity systems are fundamental infrastructure that should be viewed as instruments of public trust rather than mere background technologies

Cyberspace is fundamentally changing authority relationships, creating new questions about trust and governance between government power and Internet community self-governance

The research project will examine three specific identifier systems (WebPKI, LEI, and RPKI) to understand how private organizations and government agencies interact in global digital identity governance

Legal Entity Identifiers (LEIs) demonstrate that global standards require not just regulatory pressure but also user incentives and infrastructural integration to remain effective

Africa faces significant digital identity challenges with over 500 million people lacking verifiable legal IDs, while multiple rapid development initiatives are creating interoperability concerns

Future Internet governance should be built through open, multi-stakeholder models that reflect public interest rather than relying solely on laws and regulations

Resolutions and action items

The Internet Society Foundation has funded the Internet Governance Project at Georgia Tech to conduct research on digital identity governance

The research team will examine specific case studies including the FCC’s RPKI proceeding and the European Commission’s intervention in web authentication

Vagisha Srivastava and Karim Farhat will focus on researching Legal Entity Identifiers (LEI) systems

Benjamin Akinmoyeje will provide perspective on digital identifier policy from the African/Global South context

Unresolved issues

The fundamental question of where authority should reside in digital identity systems remains unresolved

Interoperability challenges across different national digital identity systems, particularly in Africa where different countries work with different vendors

The problem of lapsed LEI certificates where financial organizations lack incentives to renew, leading to outdated verification information

How to balance government regulatory authority with Internet community self-governance in digital identity systems

The effectiveness and implementation speed of RPKI as a method for ensuring routing security

Suggested compromises

N

o

n

e

i

d

e

n

t

i

f

i

e

d

In cyberspace, you simply do not know what these things are without some kind of a identification and authentication system… the interesting thing about cyberspace is that it is changing the authority relationships in new ways. So where does the authority reside? Who can you trust when you’re authenticating online identity?

Speaker

Dr. Milton Mueller

Reason

This comment reframes digital identity from a technical problem to a fundamental question of power and authority. It highlights that digital identity systems aren’t just about verification but about who gets to decide what constitutes legitimate identity – a deeply political question that challenges traditional notions of sovereignty and control.

Impact

This framing established the conceptual foundation for the entire discussion, shifting it from technical implementation details to governance implications. It set up the tension between traditional authority structures and new digital power dynamics that would be explored through each case study.

LEIs in our case reveal something very important which is global standards need not just regulatory pressure but user incentives and infrastructural integration for them to keep on going

Speaker

Vagisha Srivastava

Reason

This insight challenges the assumption that top-down regulatory mandates are sufficient for successful digital identity systems. It reveals a critical gap between policy intention and practical implementation, highlighting that compliance alone doesn’t ensure system sustainability or effectiveness.

Impact

This observation introduced a crucial dimension to the discussion – the difference between mandated adoption and meaningful, sustained use. It shifted the conversation from focusing solely on governance structures to considering the practical incentives and infrastructure needed for digital identity systems to actually work in practice.

The digital identity system, despite the emerging lack of trust in today’s digital world, happens to be an understudied area of Internet governance, but it has deep implications for privacy, security, and trust in today’s Internet economy

Speaker

Upasana Hembram

Reason

This comment identifies a significant research gap while simultaneously highlighting the paradox that as trust becomes more critical online, the systems that enable that trust remain poorly understood from a governance perspective. It positions digital identity as foundational infrastructure rather than background technology.

Impact

This framing justified the research project’s importance and established digital identity systems as deserving serious academic and policy attention. It elevated the discussion from technical implementation to strategic Internet governance, setting the stage for examining how these systems shape broader digital interactions.

Statistics show that over 500 million people are yet to have some form of verifiable identity, legal IDs that they can build access to… but the major concern is interoperability of this framework, because different countries talking to different vendors

Speaker

Benjamin Akinmoyeje

Reason

This comment brings a crucial Global South perspective that highlights how digital identity governance isn’t just about managing existing systems but about inclusion and access. It reveals how fragmented approaches to digital identity can perpetuate rather than solve exclusion problems.

Impact

This intervention broadened the discussion beyond the technical governance of established systems to include questions of digital inclusion and the risks of creating incompatible identity silos. It added urgency to the governance questions by showing real-world consequences of poor coordination in digital identity systems.

Overall assessment

These key comments collectively transformed what could have been a narrow technical discussion into a comprehensive examination of power, authority, and inclusion in digital identity governance. Mueller’s framing of authority relationships established the theoretical foundation, while Srivastava’s insight about the gap between regulation and implementation added practical nuance. Hembram’s identification of the research gap legitimized the inquiry’s importance, and Akinmoyeje’s Global South perspective ensured the discussion remained grounded in real-world implications for digital inclusion. Together, these comments shaped a discussion that moved fluidly between theoretical governance questions and practical implementation challenges, demonstrating how digital identity systems sit at the intersection of technology, policy, and social equity.

How quickly is RPKI being implemented and how effective is it as a method of ensuring routing security?

Speaker

Dr. Milton Mueller

Explanation

This was identified as a controversial topic that interests the research team, particularly regarding the speed of implementation and effectiveness of RPKI for routing security

What is the degree to which governments get involved in either requiring or using RPKI?

Speaker

Dr. Milton Mueller

Explanation

This represents a key research focus on the intersection of government authority and technical infrastructure governance

Why don’t financial organizations have incentives to keep renewing their LEI certificates, leading to lapsed information?

Speaker

Vagisha Srivastava

Explanation

This addresses a critical problem where the lack of renewal incentives undermines the verification and authentication purpose of LEIs

How can global standards achieve not just regulatory pressure but also user incentives and infrastructural integration for sustainability?

Speaker

Vagisha Srivastava

Explanation

This emerged as a key finding from the LEI case study about what’s needed for global digital identity standards to be successful long-term

How can interoperability be achieved across different African countries’ digital identity frameworks when they’re working with different vendors?

Speaker

Benjamin Akinmoyeje

Explanation

This represents a major concern for digital identity implementation across Africa, where different countries are adopting different technical solutions that may not work together

What are the detailed outcomes and implications of the political clash between the European Commission’s eIDAS system and existing browser-based trust hierarchies?

Speaker

Dr. Milton Mueller

Explanation

This was mentioned as an area the research will examine in detail, representing a significant conflict between government power and Internet community self-governance

Summary

This discussion focused on AI regulation from a parliamentary perspective, featuring representatives from the European Union, Egypt, and Uruguay discussing their respective approaches to governing artificial intelligence. The panel was moderated by Arda Gerkens and organized by the Inter-Parliamentary Union, which has been actively tracking AI policy developments across 37 parliaments and recently adopted a resolution on AI’s impact on democracy and human rights.

Axel Voss from the European Parliament explained that the EU AI Act, completed in 2024, primarily focuses on high-risk AI systems including biometric identification, critical infrastructure, education, employment, law enforcement, and democratic processes. He emphasized the need for unified interpretation across EU member states and warned that democratic legislators are often too slow to keep pace with technological developments. Amira Saber from Egypt’s Parliament described introducing the first AI governance bill in her country, emphasizing the importance of data classification, ethical considerations, and balancing innovation with regulation. She highlighted the weaponization of AI in regional conflicts and stressed the need for extensive capacity building among parliamentarians.

Rodrigo Goni Romero from Uruguay outlined his country’s cautious approach, preferring to establish a general legal framework while observing developments in larger jurisdictions before implementing detailed regulations. Multiple participants emphasized the challenge of balancing innovation incentives with necessary protections, particularly regarding deepfakes, misinformation, and the exploitation of vulnerable populations. The discussion revealed common themes across different regions: the need for parliamentary capacity building, multi-stakeholder approaches, youth engagement, and flexible regulatory frameworks that can adapt to rapidly evolving technology while maintaining strong ethical foundations and human rights protections.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Current State of AI Regulation Across Different Regions**: The panel discussed varying approaches to AI regulation, with the EU having completed the AI Act focusing on high-risk systems, Egypt developing national AI strategy and draft legislation with emphasis on data classification and ethical considerations, and Uruguay taking a slower, consensus-based approach with general legal frameworks to avoid deterring investment.

– **Balancing Innovation with Regulation**: A central theme throughout the discussion was the challenge of creating regulatory frameworks that protect citizens from AI risks while still encouraging private sector investment and technological advancement. Panelists emphasized the need to incentivize AI development in crucial sectors like healthcare, education, and agriculture.

– **Implementation Challenges and Regulatory Bodies**: Participants raised critical questions about which entities should enforce AI regulations, noting that traditional telecommunications regulatory bodies are insufficient. The discussion highlighted the need for specialized AI governance bodies with proper authority and the challenge of creating enforceable regulations that hold up in courts.

– **Global Coordination vs. Local Adaptation**: The conversation addressed the tension between AI being a global technology requiring international coordination and the need for country-specific regulations that reflect local contexts, cultural norms, and institutional capabilities. Participants noted the lack of international AI law similar to cybersecurity frameworks.

– **Capacity Building and Education**: All panelists emphasized the critical importance of educating parliamentarians, policymakers, and citizens about AI technologies. They stressed that effective regulation requires deep understanding of the technology being regulated, and highlighted the need for continuous learning as AI rapidly evolves.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to examine the role of parliaments in AI regulation and governance, sharing experiences and best practices across different countries and regions. The forum sought to address practical challenges parliamentarians face when developing AI legislation and to explore how democratic institutions can effectively govern rapidly evolving AI technologies while protecting human rights and promoting innovation.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a collaborative and constructive tone throughout, with participants openly sharing challenges and learning from each other’s experiences. The tone was serious and urgent, reflecting the gravity of AI’s impact on society, but remained optimistic about finding solutions through international cooperation and knowledge sharing. There was a notable shift toward more technical and practical concerns as the discussion progressed, with audience questions bringing focus to specific implementation challenges, enforcement mechanisms, and real-world harms that need immediate attention.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Arda Gerkens**: Moderator of the open forum on AI regulation and parliaments

– **Axel Voss**: German lawyer and politician from the Christian Democratic Union of Germany (CDU), Member of the European Parliament since 2009, Coordinator of the People’s Party Group in the Committee of Legal Affairs (2017), Shadow rapporteur on the AI Act, focuses on digital and legal topics

– **Amira Saber**: Egyptian Member of Parliament, Secretary General of the Foreign Relations Committee, National winner of the 2025 Study UK Alumni Awards (social action category), Alumni of the University of Sussex, Policy leader advocating for climate action, AI governance and youth empowerment, Part of ABNIC (African Parliamentary Network on Internet Governance)

– **Rodrigo Goni Romero**: Politician from Uruguay, Member of Partido Nacional, Represents the department of Salto, President of the Committee of the Future of the Parliament, Engaged with AI and democracy

– **Sarah Lister**: Co-director of governance, peace building and rule of law hub at UNDP, Provided closing remarks

– **Hossam Elgamal**: Private sector representative from Africa, MAG (Multistakeholder Advisory Group) member for four years

– **Yasmin Al Douri**: Co-founder and consultant at the Responsible Technology Hub (first European-led, youth-led non-profit focusing on bringing youth voice to responsible technology policy)

– **Meredith Veit**: Public work and human rights researcher with the Business and Human Rights Resource Center

– **Mounir Sorour**: From Bahrain

**Additional speakers:**

– **Participant** (Ali from Bahrain Shura Council): Mentioned that Bahrain drafted and approved the first AI regulatory law

– **Participant** (unnamed): Made comments about simplifying AI laws and keeping frameworks flexible

– **Participant** (unnamed): Discussed exploitation of children through internet and AI, published article on Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies about recruitment of children in extremism through AI and gaming

– **Andy Richardson**: IPU staff member mentioned as contact for AI tracking activities (referenced but did not speak)

# Parliamentary Perspectives on AI Regulation: A Comprehensive Discussion Summary

## Introduction and Context

This discussion, moderated by Arda Gerkens, was held as part of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and brought together parliamentarians and stakeholders from across the globe to examine the critical role of parliaments in artificial intelligence regulation and governance. The forum was organised by the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU), which has been actively developing AI governance initiatives including an October 2024 resolution on AI’s impact on democracy, human rights, and the rule of law.

The IPU announced several concrete initiatives during the discussion: a monthly tracker starting February 2025 covering AI policy developments across 37 parliaments, and an upcoming November 28-30 event organised with Malaysia’s Parliament, UNDP, and the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. The discussion featured representatives from the European Union, Egypt, Uruguay, and Bahrain, alongside civil society organisations, private sector representatives, and youth advocates, creating a multi-stakeholder dialogue on AI governance challenges.

## Current State of AI Regulation Across Different Regions

### European Union Approach

Axel Voss, representing the European Parliament as a CDU member and shadow rapporteur on the AI Act, provided insights into the EU’s comprehensive approach to AI regulation. The EU AI Act was completed “at the end of last Monday, so in 2024,” representing one of the world’s most ambitious attempts at regulating artificial intelligence through a risk-based approach.

The Act focuses on high-risk AI systems including biometric identification, critical infrastructure, education and vocational training, employment, essential private and public services, law enforcement, migration and border control management, and administration of justice and democratic processes. Voss emphasised concerns about implementation challenges, particularly the need for unified interpretation across EU member states to avoid the confusion experienced with GDPR.

Voss noted ongoing discussions about potentially postponing certain requirements, indicating implementation challenges even for completed legislation. He argued that “the democratic legislator is too slow for the technology developments” and advocated for framework-based approaches rather than detailed technical regulations, calling for legislators to “reduce our normal behaviour” and provide solutions within three months.

### Egyptian National Strategy

Amira Saber, representing Egypt’s Parliament as Secretary General of the Foreign Relations Committee, described her country’s efforts in developing AI governance frameworks. Egypt has developed a national AI strategy, and Saber introduced the first parliamentary draft bill on AI governance in the country, emphasising data classification and ethical considerations as foundational elements.

Saber highlighted the weaponisation of AI in regional conflicts, particularly referencing increased civilian casualties in Gaza due to AI-enhanced military systems. She stressed that “there is no one safe until everyone is safe,” connecting AI governance to broader questions of global security and collective responsibility, drawing parallels to lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic.

Her approach emphasises data classification as a prerequisite for effective AI regulation, treating national data as a valuable asset requiring protection and accountability measures. She described Egypt’s establishment of a Supreme Council on Artificial Intelligence and emphasised the need for these bodies to have authority to hold governmental entities accountable.

### Uruguay’s Cautious Consensus Approach

Rodrigo Goni Romero, representing Uruguay’s Parliament as President of the Committee of the Future, outlined his country’s deliberately cautious approach to AI regulation. Uruguay has chosen to establish general legal frameworks whilst observing developments in larger jurisdictions, with Goni Romero explicitly stating that Uruguay prefers to “go slow” and learn from others’ experiences.

This approach prioritises consensus-building and stakeholder engagement over rapid regulatory development, reflecting practical considerations about limited regulatory resources and the need to avoid deterring investment whilst ensuring appropriate oversight. Uruguay also emphasises preparation for AI’s impact on employment through capacity building and training programmes.

### Bahrain’s Regulatory Innovation

A participant from Bahrain’s Shura Council noted that Bahrain has drafted and approved what they described as “the first AI regulator law,” using the EU Act as a benchmark but making it simpler and more streamlined. This contribution highlighted how smaller nations can sometimes move more quickly than larger jurisdictions in developing AI governance frameworks.

## Key Challenges and Debates

### Balancing Innovation with Regulation

Throughout the discussion, the tension between promoting innovation and ensuring adequate protection emerged as a critical challenge. Amira Saber articulated this clearly, emphasising the need to avoid hindering investment whilst ensuring ethical AI use, particularly in sectors such as healthcare, education, and agriculture.

The challenge is particularly acute for developing countries that depend on foreign investment and technology transfer for AI development. Different speakers proposed various approaches to achieving this balance, from Egypt’s emphasis on clear ethical guidelines and data classification to Uruguay’s consensus-based approach and the EU’s comprehensive risk-based framework.

### Implementation and Institutional Capacity

Hossam Elgamal, representing the private sector perspective from Africa, raised critical questions about which entities should enforce AI regulations, noting that traditional telecommunications regulatory bodies are insufficient for comprehensive digital society regulation. He observed that “AI is global, it is not local,” highlighting the mismatch between global technology and national regulatory frameworks.

This institutional gap represents a fundamental challenge, as many countries lack the specialised regulatory bodies needed for effective AI oversight. The discussion revealed that creating effective regulation requires not only appropriate laws but also the institutional capacity to implement and enforce them.

### Democratic Processes and Technological Speed

A significant tension emerged between Axel Voss’s advocacy for faster legislative processes and Rodrigo Goni Romero’s preference for slower, consensus-based approaches. Voss argued that democratic legislators must accelerate their processes to keep pace with technology, whilst Goni Romero defended deliberative approaches that build stakeholder consensus.

This disagreement reflects fundamental differences in regulatory philosophy and the particular challenges faced by different types of countries in the global AI governance landscape.

## Human Rights and Social Impact

### Immediate Harms and Vulnerable Populations

Amira Saber provided vivid examples of AI’s immediate harms, particularly describing deepfake threats to women in conservative communities where AI-generated pornographic content could result in death threats. This powerful illustration demonstrated how AI risks intersect with existing social inequalities and cultural contexts in potentially fatal ways.

The discussion also addressed child exploitation through AI-powered platforms, with one participant describing how gaming platforms are being used for recruitment into extremism and radicalisation. These examples highlighted the urgent need for AI governance frameworks that address current harms rather than focusing solely on potential future benefits.

Meredith Veit, representing the Business and Human Rights Resource Centre, emphasised the importance of addressing actual harms happening now rather than being distracted by industry narratives about potential benefits, highlighting the need to maintain focus on protecting vulnerable populations.

### Generational Perspectives and Assumptions

One of the most significant moments occurred when Yasmin Al Douri, representing youth perspectives through the Responsible Technology Hub, directly challenged assumptions about young people’s digital literacy. When Axel Voss expressed “sorrow” that youth grow up in a world where they cannot rely on what they hear or read, Al Douri responded that “young people are way better at actually seeing what is deepfake and what is not.”

This exchange highlighted broader issues about generational assumptions in policymaking and the importance of including youth voices in AI governance discussions. Al Douri observed that young people are “always deemed as not knowing specific things when we’re actually really good at specific things,” revealing how generational biases can influence policy development.

## Data Governance and Accountability

### Data Classification as Foundation

Amira Saber consistently emphasised data classification as crucial for effective AI regulation, arguing that countries must establish clear frameworks for categorising data according to sensitivity levels before implementing comprehensive AI governance systems. This approach recognises that AI systems are fundamentally dependent on data and that effective AI governance requires robust data governance frameworks.

Hossam Elgamal reinforced this perspective by noting that many countries lack proper data exchange policies needed before implementing AI regulation, highlighting how AI governance builds upon existing digital governance frameworks.

### Accountability Frameworks

The discussion revealed significant challenges in establishing clear accountability frameworks for AI systems. Saber’s question about who should be held accountable when sensitive hospital data is leaked in AI systems illustrates the complexity of assigning responsibility in AI-enabled systems involving multiple actors across development and deployment phases.

## Capacity Building and Education

### Parliamentary Education Needs

All speakers emphasised the critical importance of educating parliamentarians about AI technologies. Amira Saber noted that effective regulation requires deep understanding of the technology being regulated, describing taking courses herself to better understand AI systems.

Axel Voss acknowledged the knowledge gap among current regulators, noting that many lack sufficient technical knowledge to effectively govern AI systems. This educational challenge is compounded by the rapid pace of AI development, requiring continuous learning rather than one-time training programmes.

### Broader Stakeholder Education

The discussion highlighted the need for broader public education about AI systems and their implications. This extends to civil society organisations, private sector actors, and other stakeholders who play important roles in AI governance ecosystems, as the multi-stakeholder nature of AI governance requires that all participants have sufficient understanding to contribute meaningfully.

## International Coordination and Future Directions

### Global Cooperation Challenges

Hossam Elgamal’s observation that “AI is global, it is not local” highlighted the fundamental challenge of governing global technology through national regulatory frameworks. His comparison with cybersecurity, where international law remains underdeveloped despite decades of effort, suggests that AI governance faces similar structural challenges.

Amira Saber proposed creating an “AI policy radar” similar to climate policy tracking systems to help parliamentarians understand global regulatory developments and learn from international experiences. This represents a practical approach to enhancing international coordination without requiring formal treaty arrangements.

### IPU’s Ongoing Role

Sarah Lister, UNDP co-director, emphasised in her closing remarks that AI governance is fundamentally a governance issue, not just a technological one. The IPU’s commitment to tracking parliamentary AI activities across 37 countries provides a foundation for continued knowledge sharing, with Andy Richardson identified as the contact for parliaments wanting to be added to the tracking list.

## Conclusions

The discussion revealed both the complexity of AI governance challenges and the potential for constructive international cooperation. While significant disagreements remain about regulatory timing and approaches, there was broad recognition of the need for capacity building, multi-stakeholder engagement, and frameworks that balance innovation with protection.

Key unresolved challenges include creating appropriate institutional capacity for AI governance, developing effective international coordination mechanisms, and ensuring that regulatory frameworks can address immediate harms while promoting beneficial AI development. The emphasis on youth engagement and multi-stakeholder approaches suggests that effective AI governance will require inclusive processes that incorporate diverse perspectives and expertise.

The IPU’s ongoing initiatives, including the monthly parliamentary tracker and upcoming collaborative events, provide concrete mechanisms for continued cooperation and knowledge sharing as countries navigate these complex governance challenges.

Arda Gerkens: here at the open forum where we will speak about the AI regulation and get some insight from parliaments. You’re not hearing me? Closer. Of course, you have to put your headsets on. This is what the workshop is about, yeah. I’ll give you some seconds to do so. And it’s non-translation, so it’s all English, channel one. Okay, thank you so much. I’m very happy to say that we have a beautiful panel today. Mr. Axel Voss, who is a member of the European Parliament, Miss Amira Saber, who is a member of the House of Representatives of Egypt, and Mr. Gonyi from Uruguay. Before we start, I would like to point out to some of the inter-parliamentarian union activities that have already been done on AI, but also will be happening in future. First of all, in October 2024, the IPU adopted a resolution on the impact of AI on democracy, human rights, and the rule of law. So any parliamentarians in here, or people who are working for any parliament, it’s a very interesting document to look at the resolution that has been adopted in October 2024 on the impact of AI on democracy, human rights, and the rule of law. And since 2025, the beginning of 2025, February, IPU began to publish a monthly tracker that monitors which parliaments are taking action on AI policy. So that’s legislation, committee inquiries… all that tracking is done by the IPU and it currently already covers 37 parliaments. So we we want to know if any parliaments here are missing from that list. If you have activities on AI, you want to be on the tracking list, you can reach out to Mr. Andy Richardson who is sitting here at the corner in front of me and he will add you to that list. And in this year, in November 28 to 20, the 30th of November, there will be a core organized event with the Parliament of Malaysia, UNDP and the Commonwealth Parliamentarian Association and that event is the role of Parliament in shaping the future of responsible AI. This will be published so you can see more about this activity and of course we hope that many parliamentarians will attend. And today from the UNDP is also here Ms. Sarah Lister. She is a co-director of governance, peace building and rule of law hub UNDP and she will make the closing remarks for today. So she won’t be speaking until the end, it’s not because I don’t want her to speak, it’s just because she’s going to listen and then conclude at the end. Okay, that’s for the normal remarks in the beginning. I would like to ask Mr. Axel Vos who is a German lawyer and he’s also a politician from the CDU, the Christian Democratic Union of Germany. He’s actually been serving as a member of the European Parliament since 2009 and you have been a coordinator of the People’s Party Group in the Committee of Legal Affairs in 2017 and you have been focusing your work on digital and legal topics, one of them being the shadow rapporteur on the AI Act. What is the current state of play with regard to AI regulation in Germany? the European Union.

Axel Voss: So, thanks a lot, and also thanks for the invitation and having me here. The situation is as follows. We’ve finished the whole AI Act, yeah, let’s say at the end of last Monday, so in 2024, and now the transition time will pass, so we have an additional part in force at the beginning of August. There’s a kind of discussion going on that this should be postponed and so on. There’s a request also from the American or US side, and so this is one thing, but the other thing is also that our companies need probably more time in adapting these, and so there’s a discussion going on just of focusing on the high-risk AI systems, so that might be postponed. It’s not decided yet, but the discussion is there, and the situation is, of course, we are concentrating in the AI Act, especially on the high-risk systems. This is not forbidden. This is allowed, but we are asking for more requirements for the deployer and also for the system itself, and of course, then it’s quite interesting to see or to notice what is an AI high-risk system, and here we have different options in place, so at first biometrical identification, we consider this as a kind of an AI high-risk system, critical infrastructure, also education and vocational training, so also the question of employment of workers, many and also self-employment, the access and enjoyment of essential private services and benefits, law enforcement also is some of these elements, migration, asylum and border control management is considered in a majority in our house for an AI high-risk system and also administration of justice and democratic processes, also this one is considered as an AI high-risk system and this is also something the whole AI Act is delivering some general additional remarks on AI but focusing more than less on AI high-risk systems and therefore then we are trying also to install or to simplify the lives of our businesses in installing so-called sandboxes. I have still the feeling if I may add this what we shouldn’t do and this is not 100% to my satisfaction that we should have only one interpretation of these provisions of the AI Act. We haven’t done this in the data protection regulation but here in the AI Act it’s extremely important that we have in the European single market only one interpretation of everything and otherwise we will be confused and the companies will be confused and this is quite important. Well I could agree with you more and

Arda Gerkens: also handling the GDPR at sometimes it’s it’s you need to interpret it so it’s very very It’s important that we have clear definitions. I’m looking forward to your work on that. Ms. Amita Saber, you are an Egyptian member of the Parliament and you are serving as the Secretary General of the Foreign Relations Committee. Quite impressive. And you are also a national winner of the 2025 Study UK Alumni Awards, the social action category alumni of the University of Sussex. So it’s quite impressive, right? You are a policy leader, you advocate for climate action, also a very important topic, AI governments and youth empowerment while you’re leading on foreign relations and social development. We’ve just heard from Mr. Axel Vos what’s happening in the European Union, but Europe and somewhere, and maybe you can elaborate a little bit more at what’s happening in your country on AI and regulation.

Amira Saber: Yeah, thank you so much. And it’s a pleasure to be talking on this panel amid esteemed colleagues. Actually in Egypt, we already have a strategy for AI which we have relaunched this year. So there is the boundaries of the national strategy. And I introduced to the Parliament the first draft bill on AI governance, which was very luckily endorsed by 60 other Egyptian MPs. The question of to regulate or not to regulate is a very big debate all across the world. And coming to my background on social democracy, I wanted to tackle the ethical part of which. How we can guarantee that the data is well classified accordingly, how to hold the provider, the entity, the government, everyone accountable according to the sensitivity of the data. Because if it comes to AI, which is basically functioning on the data and the data providers, the national data becomes a huge asset by itself. So if, for example, the data of a hospital in a far place in Egypt is leaked. Who should I hold accountable based on this? So what I tried to do based on the EU Act, by the way, because I introduced this bill like now and a year and a quarter ago, it was March 2024. And what was there in the space back then was the EU Act as the main regulatory bill, which is in the space. And we can like frame on and discuss especially that there was a huge debate between the two big schools of the US and the EU on the regulation. Because when you regulate, there is a constraint somehow on technologies advancement on investing in like crazy innovative ideas, because this might hold you accountable. And accordingly, you may pay fines, this will be a financial burden. So how to balance the innovation and incentivize the private sector to invest? Because we need the AI investments in healthcare in my country to a big deal. We need it in education, we need it in agriculture. And since our esteemed attendees today, many of which are parliamentarians, I’m not just talking about the legislative part of which I’m talking about the scrutinizing part as well. Because here comes the importance of capacitating parliamentarians. If you capacitate and educate parliamentarians on how they can use their tools to ask the different ministries, how they use the AI technologies in the different sectors to advance the work, to benefit as much as we can, the people in their country, this matters a lot. So the basic thing, which I am concerned with also is raising the awareness of the parliamentarians in my country and across the region. Actually, I’m also part of ABNIC, it’s the African Parliamentary Network on Internet Governance, an excellent African network which tries to raise the all the time, the knowledge and the exchange of experiences when it comes to data governance. So again, educate and capacitate, this is crucial. And then we discuss how it worked, because what works for Egypt definitely couldn’t work for other countries and vice versa, but there are experiences which we could always learn from and develop. So actually right away as well, there is another bill which is under progress. It could be governmental, because in Egypt we have the bills either introduced from the parliamentarians or from the government. So actually to my knowledge, there is a very big coordination, a very fruitful one between the Ministry of ICT and the Ministry of Judiciary, the Ministry which is actually concerned with judiciary, to coordinate between each other, how can they release a draft bill or how can they introduce a bill on AI governance. So the question of regulation for me, my priorities of which is how we can make it ethical, how we can focus on the sectors that matters, must and top, and how can we also incentivize the private sector, because my bill has certain incentives to get the private sector interest to invest in certain sectors actually on top of which are the ones which I prioritized during my talk now. So it’s a continuous learning process, but very honestly, after we have seen in the Middle East recently and the political consequences of the usage of AI when it is weaponized, because it has been weaponized recently in the war on Gaza, it has weaponized recently in the different wars in the region, this brings attention much more to how important the regulators, the policy makers, everyone who is a decision maker should be very much aware and capacitated on how. this develops touching the lives of thousands of people. There have been lots of reports circulating that when the IDF uses AI on the war in Gaza, this actually has raised the casualties of civilians being dead. So again, the question is political, the question is social, the question is on every aspect of how AI governance today is one of the most things which affects every aspect of our lives, no matter where we are.

Arda Gerkens: Well, this is a very warm way of saying that, the fact that AI has on our lives and especially in your region. And it’s very good to hear that you’re also there giving advice to other countries in your region and region. So maybe if there’s any parliamentarian here who would like to speak to Amira afterwards and get some advice, please make use of her. And in the meanwhile, I would like to, I hope you can hear me well, because my, okay, and it’s my headphones that not working well. Mr. Rodrigo Coño Romero, you are a politician from Uruguay. From Uruguay. And you belong to the Partido Nacional and you represent the department of Salto, right? Yes. Yes, and you have been engaged with AI and democracy. And also you have highlighted the importance of getting the parliaments in the debate on AI. You think that’s very important. Can you tell me what’s happening with the regulation on AI in your country?

Rodrigo Goni Romero: Yes. As Uruguay is a very small country in South America between biggest, big country, Argentina and Brazil, we are prioritized to be open to investment and focusing promoting, investing in AI. So in Uruguay and in neither country in Latin America have approved a law, an AI law as European Act, but in many countries there are many hundreds and hundreds of drafts. In Uruguay no, in Uruguay we prefer have passed a legal framework approved by all parties which self mandate us to develop regulation with the participation of all sectors and basis of consensus. Like I try to avoid to to do a bad signal for the investment so just approve a very very general legal framework that well we we started running to all stakeholders, academia, companies, technological companies and to develop the process very slow. I prefer go slow. I prefer observe that that they happen in Europe and US and maybe a bigger country like Brazil for

Arda Gerkens: example. Thank you very much. It’s interesting to hear that both of you also highlight the importance of having investment on AI and the dangers that you have. infringing on that investment when you have regulation maybe Axel you can tell a little bit about what progress has been achieved and do you see as apart from this challenges and risks with the AI regulation so we have to be aware

Axel Voss: that the digital future means that everything is more transparent is circular and also digital and this brings us all as a legislator under extreme pressure because it’s a challenge now to adapt the online world to the offline world somehow or vice versa and this of course what we are connecting with AI this is the fundament probably of everything else what is coming next so that’s why it is important to have kind of a frame how far you can go and what might not be part of AI systems so what is forbidden what is high risk and what is low risk and so on and so also there is a kind of a fear for shifting power from humans to machines so that’s why also we need to face these and there’s a thin line only between good purposes and bad purposes so that’s why we have the abilities with AI in widening our human abilities on the one hand side and organizational of societal possibilities the meaning of AI for health and climate change energy traffic administration security education future orientated research this is all what we have in mind that what we should go for And that’s why I would say there are a lot of challenges of having advantages also in using AI. On the other hand, of course, we are facing also a lot of risks because of this thin line. There is a risk for democracies, once again, this fear of loss of control. Then we are facing these arguments of surveillance machines, conspiracies, theories. There might be not an exchange of views and arguments any longer. What is then anti-democratic? The manipulation of the public opinions. This is also something fake news, disinformation for destabilizing countries. So, hurdles of attacking free and democracies and freedom is lower. So, even especially for the young people or youth generation, I would say it’s hard to differentiate what is real and what is not real. So, they can’t trust any longer what they are reading, seeing or hearing. So, that’s why this is a kind of a risk situation. You need to bring this somehow in a balancing situation that you are focusing on these advantages, what you can gain out of it and trying to reduce risks also. And this is what we are trying to do. Thank you, Axel.

Arda Gerkens: You just mentioned that for youth it’s hard to know what’s real, but maybe I’m not youth anymore. Sometimes I also feel it’s hard to know what’s real and what’s not. Amira, can you tell, do you also recognize that? What risks and challenges do you see?

Amira Saber: Absolutely. Actually, one of the biggest challenges is deepfake. Because deepfake is not just about how it affects the political space when it comes to elections and electoral campaigns and the manipulation of some political systems. It comes to everyone’s life, especially in some closed communities or communities which are still having their own strict cultural frameworks. Imagine a girl who is living in a village with certain cultural norms and she has leaked photographs of her on pornography. This might threaten her life directly. She could be killed. And actually there are incidents in many countries of girls and women who have suffered or actually have risked their lives to deepfake. So this is affecting everyone’s life. You can ruin someone, you can ruin his life, his career, her life, her career, based on deepfake images, deepfake videos. And now, even during the war, the war in Iran, which is just a few days ago, we were doomed. Everyone was doomed with a massive amount of media, videos, photos, news, with a very fine line on how to verify this is true or not. So in today’s world, what we thought that it would more of empower us towards knowledge and towards edging this knowledge is actually questioning the amount of feeds which we have. Is it true or not? And this again brings a big, important question of how do we verify? And this also applies to education. How do a professor verifies that a certain research is AI generated or it’s done by the personal work of the student? So what is happening now is that I see also developments. on many levels when it comes to the models verification and when it comes to the content verification, is it AI generated or not? And this is why I say all the time, educate, educate, educate, capacitate, capacitate, capacitate. For politicians, for policymakers, and for the people, for everyone. Because it’s a multi-stakeholder thing. Because it’s a multi-stakeholder thing with all the parties involved in the development on this process. Everyone’s life is touched and is altered. And you can’t keep just away from it. However, whatever trials you are exerting in that track, you can’t. It’s embedded in your life. And the good thing now is that the ethical questions are being graced on every international table. I usually hear about different strategies that are now trying to regulate and to have a bold framing, which consequently have some legal responsibilities. If you are dealing with a classified data or you’re dealing with data that is of high risk, this should have immediately a kind of legal liability. Otherwise, it’s a case because it’s already a case which we really need to, it’s a case which is touching everyone’s life, which we really need to regulate. In my country and in my region, the beautiful thing is that there are thousands, I can say millions of young people who are very enthusiastic to get to learn all about AI. I myself, before developing the draftable, I went through different courses, crash ones. I had interviews, definitely because you can’t regulate something which you don’t know. Really good. At least. Take an example of what she did. Very good. You should have a deep dive. Actually, now I can’t pass a day without using at least three apps of AI, at least in my daily work. And it helps a lot. This is the beautiful face of it. But every coin has another side. And this other side, which we as regulators and decision makers should look at thoroughly. We should maximize the benefits of this technology, and we should also look at the risks. And in countries like mine and other countries, in even a position which is having stressful economic situations, the question of AI is the question of electricity, is the question of infrastructure, is a question of capacity building. So the divide is there. I don’t usually like to speak this language, but there is a divide which we all should cross, because this motto, if anyone remembers which of the SDGs, leaving no one behind, we just, you know, we just didn’t remember well as humans the lesson of COVID, when we stated that there is no one safe until everyone is safe. We just forgot about that. This applies to everything else. It applies to AI. There is no one safe until everyone is safe, and we have a responsibility to make it a safe space as possible, because definitely it’s going to be manipulated all the time for different purposes, for different reasons, politically and otherwise. But the real responsibility here is how to make it safe as much as possible. And the good news also is that countries in my region, like Saudi Arabia or UAE or Qatar, they are having a huge potential, like in my country, of young people who are eager to learn, who are eager to get even ahead of the curve of too many competitive setups and environments, which is really appreciated. And I always say that the private sector and the UN agencies have a huge duty to capacitate as much as possible and to get investors to highlight these important tracks, which touches everyone’s life.

Arda Gerkens: Well, thank you very much. I see there’s a question. If you hold on one second, sir, because I would like to pose a question to Mr. Rodrigo and then afterwards I will give the floor to you. So, please go ahead. I was talking about the progress and the challenges and the risks.

Rodrigo Goni Romero: Yes, we are focusing on developing a national strategy of AI to try to involve all the society in the risk, in the challenge, and very focused on capacity. I am the president of the Committee of the Future of the Parliament and I try to awareness to the people the risk of the future of the job. So, we put focus in prepare, capacity. I have to recognize in many perspectives that artificial intelligence have many risks to the job, many changes. So, we have to prepare. There is no magic way to face this risk. Just capacity, capacity, capacity. But many people don’t know about the risk. So, I think it’s our duty of the Parliament to awareness, to ask to prepare and to facilitate the program. Not just to the children, not just to the school, also to the worker. So, we are focusing this.

Arda Gerkens: Very good, thank you very much. The floor, please could you state your name and then your question.

Hossam Elgamal: Yes, my name is Hossam El Gamal. I’m private sector from Africa and I’m a MAG member. I have been MAG member for four years. Well, coming back, AI has been swiftly coming, and in fact it increased a lot the digital gap. We are facing power gap, we are facing computational power gap, and ability to buy the processors to do AI. We are facing data access gap. And finally we are facing scientist capability within the AI that would then build capacity for others as well. Many countries are working on building capacity, which is good, putting some strategy is good. But let me just ask a few questions for you to think about and answer. One thing is, what is the regulatory body that will implement? We don’t in all countries till now, all what we have is telecommunication regulatory body, which is no longer capable of handling digital society regulation. And going to AI and putting regulation for AI, who is going to implement the regulation? So we need along with building AI regulation to start thinking about the regulator and how we are going to do it. So to incentivize people to work in AI, but at the same time to put limitation to misuse of AI. Now second thing is, AI is global, it is not local, and same as cyber security. Till now we are facing huge challenge in having international law of cyber security. And will be the same for AI, each country will try to start having its own regulation. But how we are going to implement it globally? Because generally data that will be used, whether fake or right. will be a global one. So again, international regulation, how is it going to handle this? And finally, a lot of countries in the South especially, in addition of lacking the power, they did not implement yet data exchange policy. So we need first to pass this point in order to be able to go to the next one. Thank you very much.

Arda Gerkens: Thank you very much. We will take one more question please, yes.

Participant: Thank you so much. My name is Ali from Bahrain Shura Council and I believe that Bahrain have drafted the first and got approved the first AI regulator, sorry, law for regulating the use of AI. We managed to do a framework that it combined a balance, which is that was the challenge between investors, getting investors and believe pushing the innovation and how to regulate the bad side of the use of the AI. But my question, I see in the neighbor’s country like Dubai and Saudi Arabia, like Dubai maybe they have a ministry of AI there currently. I think they are implementing also putting a member, an AI member in the parliament, but I don’t see them that they are regulating the AI. Are we doing a step forward, are we doing it ahead or is it we have to slow down on regulating the thing? That’s the question. Thank you.

Arda Gerkens: And the last question and then we’ll answer them all together because they are very much alike.

Yasmin Al Douri: I’ll keep it short. Good afternoon. My name is Yasmin Aldouri. I’m a co-founder and consultant at the Responsible Technology Hub. We’re actually the first European-led, youth-led non-profit that focuses on bringing the youth voice to responsible technology in the area of policy as well. my question is focused actually on Mr. Axel Voss. So your municipality is actually my hometown, so I’m really happy to see you, but also I had to think a little bit when you said that young people do not really understand or cannot really distinguish between news that might be disinformation or misinformation or can’t distinguish between deepfakes and I would definitely disagree specifically on my work with young people. I would even state that young people are way better at actually seeing what is deepfake and what is not and this shows a little bit the issue that we’re generally facing as a young generation. We are always deemed as not knowing specific things when we’re actually really good at specific things. So my question to you specifically for Europe is how can we bring the reality of youth to parliamentarians and how can we make sure that the regulation we’re actually doing today is future-proof for generations that are coming? Thank you.

Arda Gerkens: Well very good questions all of them. I actually would like to give Amira first the floor on you know the the question of what regulatory body who is capable of enough of implementing this and also because you’re from the region for some very good points made by behind and it and also it’s it’s a global problem right so how do we make sure that legislation in one country has the same effect in the other and maybe we don’t want to have the same effect so how do you go about with this as a as a parliamentarian? First when it comes to

Amira Saber: the very important question from Mr. Hossam that was a challenge for me but in Egypt actually have recently a body which is the Supreme Council on Artificial Intelligence. By law they didn’t have the authority to actually may I say hold the governmental entities accountable this is what I tried to do in my draft bill to to give them the authority to hold every ministry accountable. And in Egypt, it’s very much intermingled because now, as I said, the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of ICT, they are collaborating together towards another draft bill. And actually when it comes to every other ministry, was it education, health, whatever, they have also a mandate on advancing their services with AI technologies. So who could be the body? It should be a body which is actually just, you know, having the framework, the strategy, and it should be regulating it amongst all the other players, which in my case, I see in Egypt, the Supreme Council on Artificial Intelligence is a good entity to do that. So it depends a lot on the context, it depends a lot on the institutions and on the stage and the development of these institutions according to each and every country. But in that case, that’s how I see it in Egypt. For the comment and the question of Honorable Ali, first, congratulations. It’s so good music to my ear to hear that another Arab country has walked miles in that way and road because it’s, I see, a matter of sovereignty. It’s, I see, a matter which is touching everyone’s life. So any parliamentarian trial in that track is something which I very much appreciate. And for this, allow me, Arda, to just intensify a recommendation, which I said yesterday at one of the panels that we need to have in the space a kind of a policy radar for AI. That would be extremely knowledgeable for anyone who is accessing that on the level of policymaking to know what is happening in every region, what is happening in every country, and what do they have in place and what do they have in progress. So if we have such kind of radar, there is a climate policy radar. I wish there would be an AI policy radar. Any of the entities could sponsor that and it would be of great benefit for parliamentarians and decision makers so that I know and everyone knows what is happening in other countries. So, should we slow down or this is the question to regulate or not, but let’s at least classify the data. This is what I am very much concerned with because what is not classified couldn’t be easily regulated. So we have like broader things to think about when it comes to classification and to have a legal liability based on which and the other thing is not to slow down at all when it comes to incentivizing the ministries and asking them and doing this chronitizing job of making every ministry up to using AI for the good of the people in their mandate. So it’s like depending on the context, but again, at least the data classification is one crucial thing.

Arda Gerkens: You make a very good point on the data classification and I think that also answers the question. I think it is indeed worrying that there’s a lot of legislation still needed on this data exchange and that’s something that needs to be worked upon simultaneously. I would like to ask Mr. Axel Fos the question, the excellent question, how do we make the reality of youth in the legislation? So how do we connect it? And maybe you can take another question as well because there’s been some online questions, remote questions asked. Can AI help in mitigating the social impact of child abuse and gender related inequalities? It’s kind of a heavy question, but I thought as you are very much into the AIX, maybe you can stipulate something on it. So thank you.

Axel Voss: If I may start with my friend from the Rhineland, I do not, ah, over there. So what I mentioned shouldn’t be a kind of an insult. It was more, I feel sorrow that you are growing up in a world where you are not, can’t rely on something, what is saying or what you’re hearing or what you’re reading. So this is, so I grew up in a different century. So that’s why I would say it was more easy for me to find trust in. some of these elements. But the question of course is the now active regulators probably do not have the knowledge in a way in really understanding what’s going on. And probably sometimes I have the feeling the politicians might be a bigger problem than the technology because we are hindering sometimes some elements and especially if you’re dealing with digital laws then all of a sudden you have a totally different context instead of online laws. So that’s why it’s difficult. I hope that every parliament has someone dealing with these who is understanding a bit more than the average politician. Also if we are coming to this point and saying oh yes digital is very important and we need to develop something then probably nobody knows what to do. So that’s why we need to come forward with it and also to the others. The problem is so I speak for the European Union the democratic legislator is too slow for the technology developments. And so we are always behind. That’s why I’m I would, we can face this problem a bit more if we are saying we need to reduce the normal behavior of a democratic legislator. So meaning there should be a kind of a solution in place after three months. And otherwise we are losing track of this problem and if we are once ready with a law then it might be a kind of a different problem already occurring. So, we need to be faster and we need probably not to be detailed all the time. It’s more a kind of a frame what we should have with ethical aspects or a kind of value-orientated frame and then you might have the time, as everyone knows, if I’m in the frame, everything is okay. If I’m outside the frame, you will face trouble. So this might be a kind of a better way forward. So I’m asking sometimes myself, shouldn’t we instead of focusing on all these risks and avoiding these, shouldn’t we just ask ourselves what we are expecting from AI? This is a more positive approach probably in saying what we are expecting and we do not want to see other things. So that’s why it might help in a kind of a better way. So data exchange policy, what was mentioned, or the second question? Can it help in mitigating the social impact of gender-related abuse and gender-related inequalities? Yes. I would say it can, but of course you need to have a kind of a plan in mind how to do this. I would say it’s not coming as a kind of a stereotype behavior, so no, you have to concentrate on it and also it can help everyone in mitigating these problems, I would say. But of course you need to be very careful in what are the conditions at the end in formulating these.

Arda Gerkens: So, yeah, basically it’s what I hear you say, that as a parliament you should avoid being too detailed. Yes. But make sure that you have a framework here. Also a philosopher comes to mind, Mr. Wittgenstein, who once said, if you don’t know what you’re talking about, you shouldn’t speak on it. I hear both of you say, maybe as a politician, parliamentarian, this time you should put a little extra effort in understanding AI, because it’s so important. Do you think that the parliaments now, it’s a question also from remotes, that they are kind of shaping their own AI policies, or are they just looking at what somebody else is proposing? You already said that you took the AI Act as an example. I depended on too many sources, of which, because it was in the space then as a legislation, I definitely had a deep dive on what the EU Act had. And how about you, Axel, the European Union, they started fresh, or did they look at other examples? No. There are not many examples in there. You were the first. Yeah. They were the first, yeah, but you’re the first. I followed them. You followed them. OK, so. I went to one. Right.

Axel Voss: It’s very detailed, because we are sometimes too complicated and too bureaucratic orientated, but in general, yes, it’s. So for the people who are not hearing this, Bahrain just stated that they have used, they benchmarked their law against the one of the European Commission, and they made it much more simpler. I think that’s what they tried. As a framework. Right. OK. The problem for kind of a rule of law system is at the end, and this was also mentioned with the first question, how to implement and how to enforce all these. Also, yes, the capacity might not be there. So what we are trying now to do is to build up a so-called AI office and also give guidelines and what the provisions should mean and how we might come forward. But at the end, also, you need someone in controlling. and are enforcing all these, and here we are coming to a problem, you need to have something what is also valid in front of a court. So if this is not possible, then it might be very tricky.

Arda Gerkens: You wanted to add something, Ms. Habe?

Amira Saber: Yes. One of the main tools which parliamentarians use is actually the assessment of the legislative impact. It’s still missing to a great extent to assist the legislative impact of the AI bills which are already released. So we are also challenged by the impact of these legislations. So for example, in the EU Act, can I say full mouth 100% that this didn’t affect the amount of private sector investments in the fields of high tech and AI development and that these companies went to the US, for example? It’s not accessible yet. You know, these kind of big questions, it takes time to assess. That’s why the question of regulation when it comes to AI is very challenging. You need to put the regulation now, and you need also to assess the impact, and you need to all the time amend and edit and amend and edit according to the advancement of the technologies and according to what is in place. That’s why I all the time probe the framework and the legal interventions which are regulating the basic thing, which are more towards the data classification, the rights, the ethics, the broader ones. Because when you dive deeply in the details, you get completely doomed. And this is not what the regulator should do.

Arda Gerkens: I see a lot of people nodding in what you’re saying about adding the legislation all the time. So there’s a question from the floor. And if there’s another question, you have to be at the microphone. But first from the lady. Yeah.

Meredith Veit: Hi, thank you. My name is Meredith. I’m the public work and human rights researcher with the Business and Human Rights Resource Center. And it’s really great that we’re having this panel now about AI regulation and the program. Thank you. of it and better understanding what are the impacts because there are governments even here who are touting some very problematic narratives about the dangers of clipping the wings of the potential and everything that AI can do for the benefits of society while ignoring the mountains of evidence that we have about the actual harms that are taking place now that need to be mitigated and dealt with now and justice that needs to happen now so my question from your seats and your positionality is what is needed and what hope do you have in terms of pushing back against this wave and these very problematic narratives as I mentioned in order to hold the line and keep pushing forward on all of the momentum that had been building about AI regulation for quite some time and even keeping the EU AI Act strong and making sure that the AI office is strong in its enforcement and having a really well-tuned regulatory approach that can help continue to set more standards moving

Arda Gerkens: forward thank you so much thank you and another question from behind your

Participant: honorable yeah hi actually it’s not a question just a comment on amending the law I believe the more that what we can do is to simplify the law and just to keep it to another body that they are more of more flexible because changing anything in the law it’s gonna take a long time which we cannot cope as with the developing the fast developing of the AI so this is the only thing come

Arda Gerkens: that’s a very good advice just keep the framework in the law and make sure that you have lower regulation to be able to be flexible I’m gonna take the last question here yes please

Participant: thank you for giving me the floor I’m very happy that I could have touched you especially on this topic exploitation of children through the internet and through artificial intelligence. I have just published a new article on Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies about this issue, how young people and children are recruited in extremism and radicalization and terrorism through artificial intelligence. And it was surprising, because I started to study and research about this topic, that they are recruiting children through the games, through the gamings. They recruit children through electronic games on the internet. It is available. So I concluded this study with some recommendations. One of the recommendations, look after your children. Don’t leave them alone with the screens. Don’t do it. They isolate them firstly, then they start to promote their own ideas and radicalization approaches. Then we find some young people doing horrible things. So one of the recommendations is awareness is very important. And the legislation, of course. Thank you. Bye bye.

Arda Gerkens: Thank you very much. And this is really the last question I’m going to take. I’m going to ask you very brief answers, because Sarah will then wrap up.

Mounir Sorour: I’m Mounir Sourour from Bahrain, I would like to thank you and thank all of you. Making regulation is very easy, but at the same time difficult, especially in AI. Because AI, we are working on open space. And every time we do something, I mean, because we are moving and we’re expanding. As Ms. Iman said, we are every time just asking, adapting to ourselves. Can we just say yes to something to be like a main framework? And we are looking for balancing, we don’t look now to make a regulation, we can’t fix a regulation, especially with AI. Can we, I mean, according to the experience of Egyptian, can we just mention what the main framework at least to minimize the risk of the AI?

Arda Gerkens: Thanks. Thank you. A very short answer from Amira first. You’re good? Axel, maybe you want to comment?

Axel Voss: Yes. So thanks for the recommendations. It’s good to hear. To Meredith, yes, so keeping the AI act strong. This is what we are trying to do, but we are in a kind of a trap. We are seeing AI and AI systems and generative AI is creating a lot of wealth. And so we are lagging behind everywhere except two big regions. And this is why we need to support these. But on the other hand, also trying to keep very strong limits and framework.

Arda Gerkens: Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you all. I would like to give the floor to Miss Sarah Lister, who will give us her closing remarks.

Sarah Lister: Thank you very much. And as we conclude this open forum on AI regulation, I’d like to start by thanking, first of all, all the panelists, the participants, the moderator in person and online for all your insights and the questions and the commitment to inclusive rights-based governance of artificial intelligence. As a personal reflection, I am delighted that there is such a well-attended session focusing on the role of parliaments. In my experience, too often in digitalization discussions, national governance authorities and processes have been forgotten and have been brought too late to the processes. So, today’s discussion has highlighted the practical role of parliaments in ensuring that AI systems are aligned with human rights and normative principles and to ensure that no one is left behind, as the colleague from Egypt said. We have heard that parliaments are on the front lines of some of the most pressing policy issues of our time. How to protect citizens and all people while enabling innovation? And that has been a core theme that has run through our discussion this afternoon. It was raised by the colleague from Egypt and from Uruguay and from the floor. And then how do we ensure oversight in a rapidly evolving technological landscape? What type of regulatory entities do you need? How do you create governance frameworks that are grounded in human rights? And we have heard that to ensure the benefits of AI reach everyone, we must invest in the development, governance and support of responsible and ethical AI, as well as in countries’ capacities to build safe, secure and trustworthy AI systems. Parliaments are key in governing the use of global technologies and ensuring that these truly serve their public’s interests and support the achievements of the SDGs. We have heard that no single actor can shape the governance of AI alone. Effective regulation demands a multi-stakeholder approach, bringing together parliaments, executive branches, civil society, private sector and technical communities. And Uruguay talked about the consensus-based approach that takes place there. We heard from the floor and then in response about the importance of bringing youth voices to the discussions and have asked the question, how can we effectively ensure that multi-stakeholder, including young people’s, approach to this issue? The report of the Secretary General’s High-Level Advisory Body on AI and the Global Digital Compact that was signed on the margins of the General Assembly last year notes that AI governance requires addressing existing gaps in representation, coordination and implementation. Parliaments are key actors in ensuring that. At UNDP, we see AI not only as a technological issue, but as a governance one. We support countries with our partners in navigating both the governance of digitalization and digitalization for governance. And we support countries to develop their potential to transform their public services, build a more open and inclusive public sphere and enhance democratic processes and institutions. We co-host with IPU, an expert group on parliaments and digital policy to try to bring together some of these elements that people have asked for in terms of sharing experiences. And other international organizations join that expert group to help ensure that we pull together. I see that my time has passed, so I would just say once again, thank you very much for being a part of this timely and important conversation. A special thanks to the Inter-Parliamentary Union for their partnership in making this event possible and to the IGF for hosting us. Thank you very much.

Agreement points

Capacity building and education are essential for all stakeholders

Speakers

– Axel Voss
– Amira Saber
– Rodrigo Goni Romero
– Arda Gerkens

Arguments

Need for better understanding among regulators who may not have sufficient technical knowledge

Continuous learning and capacity building essential for politicians, policymakers, and citizens

Parliamentarians need education on AI to effectively scrutinize government AI use across sectors

Continuous learning and capacity building essential for politicians, policymakers, and citizens

Parliamentarians should invest extra effort in understanding AI due to its critical importance

Summary

All speakers emphasized that understanding AI technology is crucial for effective governance, with particular emphasis on educating parliamentarians, policymakers, and citizens to make informed decisions about AI regulation and oversight.

Topics

Development | Capacity development

Need for flexible regulatory frameworks rather than detailed fixed laws

Speakers

– Axel Voss
– Amira Saber
– Participant
– Mounir Sorour

Arguments

Democratic legislators are too slow for technology developments, need faster, framework-based approach rather than detailed laws

Legislative impact assessment of AI bills still missing in many jurisdictions

Importance of having flexible lower-level regulations rather than frequently amending laws

AI regulation should focus on flexible frameworks rather than fixed regulations due to the open and expanding nature of AI

Summary

There is strong consensus that AI regulation should focus on creating flexible frameworks and principles rather than detailed, rigid laws that cannot adapt to rapidly evolving technology.

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Balancing innovation incentives with regulatory protection

Speakers

– Axel Voss
– Amira Saber
– Rodrigo Goni Romero
– Participant

Arguments

Regulation should focus on positive expectations from AI rather than just avoiding risks

Need to avoid hindering investment while ensuring ethical AI use, especially in healthcare, education, and agriculture

Small countries like Uruguay prioritize being open to investment while developing regulation through stakeholder consensus

Bahrain has drafted and approved first AI regulatory law balancing innovation and regulation

Summary

All speakers agreed on the critical need to balance regulatory protection with maintaining incentives for innovation and investment, particularly for smaller countries and developing economies.

Topics

Economic | Legal and regulatory

Data classification and governance as fundamental to AI regulation

Speakers

– Amira Saber
– Hossam Elgamal

Arguments

Data classification crucial as foundation for effective AI regulation

National data becomes valuable asset requiring protection and accountability measures

Need for legal liability based on data sensitivity classification

Many countries lack proper data exchange policies needed before implementing AI regulation

Summary

Both speakers emphasized that proper data classification and governance frameworks are prerequisites for effective AI regulation, with clear accountability measures based on data sensitivity levels.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Data governance | Privacy and data protection

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers from developing countries emphasized the importance of learning from other jurisdictions while adapting solutions to their specific national contexts, favoring consensus-based approaches over rigid regulatory frameworks.

Speakers

– Amira Saber
– Rodrigo Goni Romero

Arguments

Importance of sharing experiences between countries while recognizing different contexts

Uruguay prefers slow, consensus-based approach with general legal framework rather than detailed regulation

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory

Both speakers highlighted the serious threats posed by AI-generated fake content, though Voss focused on democratic implications while Saber emphasized personal safety risks, particularly for women.

Speakers

– Axel Voss
– Amira Saber

Arguments

Difficulty distinguishing real from fake content affects democratic processes and public trust

Deepfakes pose serious threats to individuals’ lives and careers, especially affecting women in conservative communities

Topics

Human rights | Sociocultural | Gender rights online

Both emphasized the active oversight role of parliaments beyond just creating laws, including monitoring how AI is used by government entities and protecting vulnerable populations from AI-enabled threats.

Speakers

– Amira Saber
– Participant

Arguments

Parliaments should focus on scrutinizing ministerial AI use rather than just legislation

Children vulnerable to recruitment through AI-powered gaming platforms for extremism and radicalization

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Cybersecurity | Children rights

Unexpected consensus

Youth capabilities in identifying AI-generated content

Speakers

– Axel Voss
– Yasmin Al Douri
– Arda Gerkens

Arguments

Difficulty distinguishing real from fake content affects democratic processes and public trust

Young people are often better at identifying deepfakes and misinformation than assumed

AI makes it difficult for people of all ages to distinguish between real and fake content

Explanation

While there was initial disagreement about youth capabilities, the discussion revealed an unexpected consensus that the challenge of distinguishing real from fake content affects all age groups, not just young people, suggesting a more nuanced understanding of digital literacy across generations.

Topics

Sociocultural | Human rights | Youth Engagement and Future-Proofing

Need for international coordination despite national sovereignty concerns

Speakers

– Hossam Elgamal
– Amira Saber
– Sarah Lister

Arguments

AI regulation needs international coordination as AI systems operate globally

Need for AI policy radar similar to climate policy radar to track global regulatory developments

Multi-stakeholder approach essential involving parliaments, civil society, private sector, and technical communities

Explanation

Despite speakers representing different national interests and regulatory approaches, there was unexpected consensus on the need for global coordination and information sharing, recognizing that AI governance transcends national boundaries.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Global Coordination and International Cooperation

Overall assessment

Summary

The speakers demonstrated remarkable consensus on key foundational issues: the critical importance of capacity building and education for all stakeholders, the need for flexible regulatory frameworks rather than rigid detailed laws, the necessity of balancing innovation with protection, and the fundamental role of data governance. There was also strong agreement on the multi-stakeholder nature of AI governance and the need for international coordination.

Consensus level

High level of consensus on fundamental principles with constructive disagreement on implementation details. This suggests a mature understanding of AI governance challenges and creates a strong foundation for collaborative policy development. The consensus spans across different regions (Europe, Middle East, Latin America) and different types of stakeholders (parliamentarians, civil society, private sector), indicating broad-based agreement on core AI governance principles that could facilitate international cooperation and knowledge sharing.

Different viewpoints

Young people’s ability to distinguish real from fake content

Speakers

– Axel Voss
– Yasmin Al Douri

Arguments

Difficulty distinguishing real from fake content affects democratic processes and public trust

Young people are often better at identifying deepfakes and misinformation than assumed

Summary

Axel Voss argued that young people find it hard to differentiate what is real and fake, creating democratic risks. Yasmin Al Douri directly disagreed, stating that young people are actually better at identifying deepfakes and misinformation than assumed, and that this represents a broader issue of underestimating youth capabilities.

Topics

Human rights | Sociocultural

Speed and approach to AI regulation

Speakers

– Axel Voss
– Rodrigo Goni Romero

Arguments

Democratic legislators are too slow for technology developments, need faster, framework-based approach rather than detailed laws

Uruguay prefers slow, consensus-based approach with general legal framework rather than detailed regulation

Summary

Axel Voss advocated for faster legislative processes (three months) to keep up with technology, while Rodrigo explicitly stated Uruguay prefers to ‘go slow’ and observe what happens in larger jurisdictions before acting.

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Detailed vs. framework-based regulation

Speakers

– Axel Voss
– Amira Saber

Arguments

Democratic legislators are too slow for technology developments, need faster, framework-based approach rather than detailed laws

Legislative impact assessment of AI bills still missing in many jurisdictions

Summary

While both agree on avoiding overly detailed regulation, Axel Voss focuses on speed and framework approaches, while Amira Saber emphasizes the need for impact assessment and the challenge of constantly amending detailed regulations as technology evolves.

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Unexpected differences

Generational assumptions about digital literacy

Speakers

– Axel Voss
– Yasmin Al Douri

Arguments

Difficulty distinguishing real from fake content affects democratic processes and public trust

Young people are often better at identifying deepfakes and misinformation than assumed

Explanation

This disagreement was unexpected because it revealed a fundamental disconnect between policymaker assumptions and youth advocate perspectives. Yasmin Al Douri’s direct challenge to Axel Voss’s statement highlighted how generational assumptions can influence policy-making, which is particularly significant given that AI regulation will primarily affect younger generations.

Topics

Human rights | Sociocultural

Regulatory timing philosophy

Speakers

– Axel Voss
– Rodrigo Goni Romero

Arguments

Democratic legislators are too slow for technology developments, need faster, framework-based approach rather than detailed laws

Uruguay prefers slow, consensus-based approach with general legal framework rather than detailed regulation

Explanation

This disagreement was unexpected because both speakers represent democratic systems but had completely opposite philosophies about regulatory timing. Axel Voss argued for urgency due to technological pace, while Rodrigo advocated for deliberate slowness to observe and learn from others, revealing how country size and position can fundamentally shape regulatory philosophy.

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Overall assessment

Summary

The main areas of disagreement centered on regulatory approach and timing, youth capabilities in digital environments, and the balance between innovation and regulation. While speakers generally agreed on fundamental goals like protecting citizens while enabling innovation, they differed significantly on methods and assumptions.

Disagreement level

Moderate disagreement with significant implications. The disagreements reveal fundamental differences in regulatory philosophy, generational assumptions, and approaches to balancing innovation with protection. These differences could lead to fragmented global AI governance approaches, with some jurisdictions moving quickly with framework-based regulation while others take slower, consensus-based approaches. The generational disconnect highlighted by the youth advocate suggests that current AI regulation may not adequately reflect the realities and capabilities of those most affected by these technologies.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers from developing countries emphasized the importance of learning from other jurisdictions while adapting solutions to their specific national contexts, favoring consensus-based approaches over rigid regulatory frameworks.

Speakers

– Amira Saber
– Rodrigo Goni Romero

Arguments

Importance of sharing experiences between countries while recognizing different contexts

Uruguay prefers slow, consensus-based approach with general legal framework rather than detailed regulation

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory

Both speakers highlighted the serious threats posed by AI-generated fake content, though Voss focused on democratic implications while Saber emphasized personal safety risks, particularly for women.

Speakers

– Axel Voss
– Amira Saber

Arguments

Difficulty distinguishing real from fake content affects democratic processes and public trust

Deepfakes pose serious threats to individuals’ lives and careers, especially affecting women in conservative communities

Topics

Human rights | Sociocultural | Gender rights online

Both emphasized the active oversight role of parliaments beyond just creating laws, including monitoring how AI is used by government entities and protecting vulnerable populations from AI-enabled threats.

Speakers

– Amira Saber
– Participant

Arguments

Parliaments should focus on scrutinizing ministerial AI use rather than just legislation

Children vulnerable to recruitment through AI-powered gaming platforms for extremism and radicalization

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Cybersecurity | Children rights

Key takeaways

AI regulation requires balancing innovation incentives with risk mitigation, particularly for investment-dependent developing countries

Data classification and governance frameworks must be established before detailed AI regulation can be effective

Parliamentarians need extensive capacity building and technical education to effectively regulate and oversee AI implementation

Democratic legislative processes are too slow for rapidly evolving AI technology, requiring framework-based rather than detailed regulatory approaches

Multi-stakeholder approaches involving parliaments, civil society, private sector, and technical communities are essential for effective AI governance

International coordination is crucial since AI operates globally, but regulatory approaches must be adapted to local contexts

Youth voices and technical expertise should be better integrated into parliamentary AI policy-making processes

Immediate harms from AI (deepfakes, weaponization, misinformation) require urgent attention alongside long-term governance frameworks

Resolutions and action items

IPU to continue monthly tracking of parliamentary AI activities across 37 parliaments and expand coverage

Parliamentarians encouraged to contact Andy Richardson to be added to IPU’s AI policy tracking list

Upcoming IPU event scheduled for November 28-30 with Parliament of Malaysia, UNDP, and Commonwealth Parliamentary Association on responsible AI

Recommendation to create an AI policy radar system similar to climate policy radar to track global regulatory developments

Need to establish appropriate regulatory bodies with authority to hold governmental entities accountable for AI use

Focus on developing flexible lower-level regulations rather than frequently amending primary legislation

Unresolved issues

Which specific regulatory bodies should implement AI regulation in countries lacking adequate digital governance authorities

How to achieve effective international coordination of AI regulation while respecting national sovereignty and different development contexts

Whether the EU AI Act’s detailed approach will negatively impact private sector investment and innovation

How to effectively measure and assess the legislative impact of AI regulations on innovation and investment

Timing and implementation details for potentially postponing high-risk AI system requirements in the EU

How to bridge the digital divide in computational power, data access, and scientific capability between developed and developing countries

Specific mechanisms for ensuring youth voices are meaningfully integrated into parliamentary AI policy processes

Suggested compromises

Adopt general legal frameworks with broad ethical principles rather than detailed technical regulations to maintain flexibility

Focus regulation on data classification and high-risk AI applications while allowing innovation in lower-risk areas

Implement consensus-based, multi-stakeholder approaches that involve all sectors in developing AI governance

Prioritize capacity building and education for parliamentarians while developing regulatory frameworks simultaneously

Create regulatory sandboxes to allow business experimentation within controlled environments

Establish framework laws with delegated authority to specialized bodies for detailed implementation rules

Balance immediate harm mitigation with long-term innovation goals through risk-based regulatory approaches

However, whatever trials you are exerting in that track, you can’t. It’s embedded in your life. And the good thing now is that the ethical questions are being graced on every international table… There is no one safe until everyone is safe, and we have a responsibility to make it a safe space as possible, because definitely it’s going to be manipulated all the time for different purposes, for different reasons, politically and otherwise.

Speaker

Amira Saber

Reason

This comment is deeply insightful because it reframes AI regulation from a technical/legal issue to a fundamental human security issue. By invoking the COVID-19 lesson of ‘no one safe until everyone is safe,’ she connects AI governance to global solidarity and collective responsibility, moving beyond national regulatory approaches.

Impact

This comment elevated the discussion from technical regulatory details to philosophical and ethical foundations. It influenced subsequent speakers to consider the global interconnectedness of AI risks and led to questions about international coordination and the need for unified approaches across borders.

The democratic legislator is too slow for the technology developments. And so we are always behind… we need to reduce the normal behavior of a democratic legislator. So meaning there should be a kind of a solution in place after three months… It’s more a kind of a frame what we should have with ethical aspects or a kind of value-orientated frame.

Speaker

Axel Voss

Reason

This is a provocative challenge to traditional democratic processes, suggesting that democracy itself may be structurally inadequate for governing rapidly evolving technologies. It raises fundamental questions about the tension between democratic deliberation and technological urgency.

Impact

This comment sparked a crucial debate about regulatory approaches throughout the remainder of the discussion. Multiple participants referenced the framework vs. detailed regulation approach, and it led to practical suggestions about keeping laws simple while delegating flexibility to regulatory bodies.

Imagine a girl who is living in a village with certain cultural norms and she has leaked photographs of her on pornography. This might threaten her life directly. She could be killed. And actually there are incidents in many countries of girls and women who have suffered or actually have risked their lives to deepfake.

Speaker

Amira Saber

Reason

This comment is powerfully insightful because it grounds abstract AI risks in concrete, life-threatening realities, particularly for vulnerable populations. It demonstrates how AI harms intersect with existing social inequalities and cultural contexts in ways that can be fatal.

Impact

This visceral example shifted the discussion from theoretical policy considerations to urgent human rights concerns. It influenced later questions about child protection and gender-based violence, and reinforced the need for immediate regulatory action rather than prolonged deliberation.

I would even state that young people are way better at actually seeing what is deepfake and what is not and this shows a little bit the issue that we’re generally facing as a young generation. We are always deemed as not knowing specific things when we’re actually really good at specific things… how can we bring the reality of youth to parliamentarians and how can we make sure that the regulation we’re actually doing today is future-proof for generations that are coming?

Speaker

Yasmin Al Douri

Reason

This comment is thought-provoking because it directly challenges assumptions made by senior policymakers and flips the narrative about generational digital literacy. It highlights a critical gap in policymaking where those most affected by regulations have the least voice in creating them.

Impact

This intervention created a notable shift in tone, forcing Axel Voss to clarify his earlier statement and acknowledge the problem of excluding youth voices. It introduced the crucial question of intergenerational equity in AI governance and influenced the moderator to emphasize the importance of including youth perspectives.

AI is global, it is not local, and same as cyber security. Till now we are facing huge challenge in having international law of cyber security. And will be the same for AI, each country will try to start having its own regulation. But how we are going to implement it globally?

Speaker

Hossam Elgamal

Reason

This comment is insightful because it identifies a fundamental structural problem: the mismatch between global technology and national regulatory frameworks. It draws a parallel with cybersecurity to show this is a recurring challenge in digital governance.

Impact

This question exposed a critical weakness in the current regulatory approach and led to discussions about the need for international coordination. It influenced Amira Saber’s response about creating an ‘AI policy radar’ and highlighted the limitations of purely national approaches to AI governance.

What is the regulatory body that will implement? We don’t in all countries till now, all what we have is telecommunication regulatory body, which is no longer capable of handling digital society regulation. And going to AI and putting regulation for AI, who is going to implement the regulation?

Speaker

Hossam Elgamal

Reason

This comment cuts to the heart of implementation challenges, pointing out that existing regulatory infrastructure is inadequate for AI governance. It highlights the gap between creating laws and having the institutional capacity to enforce them.

Impact

This practical concern grounded the discussion in implementation realities and led to concrete discussions about creating new regulatory bodies, such as Amira Saber’s mention of Egypt’s Supreme Council on Artificial Intelligence and Axel Voss’s reference to the EU’s AI office.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally shaped the discussion by introducing critical tensions and complexities that moved the conversation beyond surface-level policy discussions. Amira Saber’s comments consistently elevated the discourse to address human rights, global solidarity, and life-threatening consequences, while Axel Voss’s observation about democratic processes being too slow created a central tension that influenced much of the subsequent debate. The youth representative’s challenge to generational assumptions and the practical questions about implementation and global coordination forced participants to confront the limitations of current approaches. Together, these interventions transformed what could have been a technical policy discussion into a nuanced exploration of democracy, human rights, global governance, and intergenerational equity in the age of AI. The comments created a cascading effect where each insight built upon others, ultimately revealing AI regulation as a complex challenge requiring fundamental rethinking of governance structures, democratic processes, and international cooperation.

How can we have only one interpretation of AI Act provisions across the European single market to avoid confusion for companies?

Speaker

Axel Voss

Explanation

This is crucial for business clarity and consistent implementation across EU member states, unlike the varied interpretations seen with GDPR

Who should be held accountable when sensitive data (like hospital data) is leaked in AI systems?

Speaker

Amira Saber

Explanation

This addresses the fundamental question of liability and responsibility in AI data breaches, especially for sensitive national data

How can we balance AI innovation incentives with regulatory constraints to avoid discouraging private sector investment?

Speaker

Amira Saber

Explanation

This is essential for countries needing AI investments in healthcare, education, and agriculture while maintaining ethical standards

What regulatory body will implement AI regulations, given that current telecommunication regulatory bodies are inadequate for digital society regulation?

Speaker

Hossam Elgamal

Explanation

This addresses the institutional gap in AI governance and the need for appropriate regulatory infrastructure

How can international AI regulation be implemented globally when AI is inherently global but countries are developing separate national regulations?

Speaker

Hossam Elgamal

Explanation

This highlights the challenge of coordinating AI governance across borders, similar to ongoing challenges with international cybersecurity law

Should countries slow down AI regulation or move forward, especially when neighboring countries have different approaches?

Speaker

Ali from Bahrain Shura Council

Explanation

This addresses the strategic timing of AI regulation and whether early adoption provides advantages or disadvantages

How can we bring the reality of youth perspectives to parliamentarians and ensure AI regulation is future-proof for coming generations?

Speaker

Yasmin Al Douri

Explanation

This challenges assumptions about youth capabilities and emphasizes the need for intergenerational input in AI policymaking

Can AI help in mitigating the social impact of child abuse and gender-related inequalities?

Speaker

Remote participant

Explanation

This explores the potential positive applications of AI in addressing serious social issues

How can we assess the legislative impact of AI bills, particularly whether EU AI Act affected private sector investments?

Speaker

Amira Saber

Explanation

This addresses the need for evidence-based policy evaluation to understand the real-world effects of AI regulation

What is needed to push back against problematic narratives that ignore current AI harms while focusing only on potential benefits?

Speaker

Meredith Veit

Explanation

This addresses the need to balance AI regulation discussions with acknowledgment of existing harms requiring immediate attention

What should be the main framework to minimize AI risks while maintaining flexibility for rapid technological changes?

Speaker

Mounir Sourour

Explanation

This seeks practical guidance on creating adaptable regulatory frameworks that can evolve with technology

How can we create an AI policy radar similar to the climate policy radar to track global AI policy developments?

Speaker

Amira Saber

Explanation

This would provide parliamentarians and policymakers with comprehensive knowledge of AI policy developments worldwide

How can we verify AI-generated content and distinguish between real and fake information, including deepfakes?

Speaker

Amira Saber

Explanation

This addresses the critical challenge of content verification in an era where AI can create convincing fake content

How can democratic legislators become faster in responding to technology developments instead of always being behind?

Speaker

Axel Voss

Explanation

This addresses the fundamental challenge of democratic processes being too slow for rapid technological advancement

Summary

This workshop discussion focused on innovative regulatory policy and business strategies for achieving equitable digital inclusion, particularly in developing countries and Africa. The session was organized under South Africa’s G20 presidency, building on previous work by Brazil that developed the concept of “meaningful connectivity” beyond basic internet access. The panelists identified that the primary barriers to digital inclusion are demand-side constraints rather than supply-side infrastructure issues, with device affordability being the biggest obstacle to internet access, followed by digital literacy and skills gaps.

The discussion revealed that despite high mobile broadband coverage in many African countries (above 95% in some cases), actual connectivity rates remain below 20%, indicating that coverage alone does not solve the digital divide. Panelists emphasized that 90% of unconnected people live in areas with existing coverage but face other barriers to access. The conversation highlighted how digital technologies amplify existing inequalities, creating multiple tiers of connectivity from the unconnected to those with minimal access to those who can meaningfully participate in the digital economy.

Solutions discussed included reducing regulatory barriers for small operators and community networks, implementing wholesale access regulation to lower backhaul costs, developing innovative device financing schemes, and creating comprehensive digital skills training programs. The panelists stressed the importance of intermediaries like libraries and post offices in supporting digital inclusion, and the need for diverse, locally-relevant solutions rather than one-size-fits-all approaches. The discussion concluded with calls for a fundamental shift from treating people as consumers in a market-driven system to recognizing digital access as a public good and citizen right, requiring cross-sectoral collaboration and whole-of-society approaches to address the underlying structural inequalities that perpetuate digital exclusion.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **The Digital Divide is More Complex Than Just Connectivity**: The discussion reveals that 90% of unconnected people actually live in areas with mobile broadband coverage, indicating the problem isn’t infrastructure but rather affordability, digital skills, and meaningful usage barriers.

– **Device Affordability as the Primary Barrier**: Research shows that for the poorest 20% in sub-Saharan Africa, an entry-level internet-enabled device costs 99% of average monthly income, making device cost the biggest obstacle to internet access rather than data costs.

– **Need for Diverse Ecosystem Solutions Beyond Traditional Operators**: The conversation emphasizes moving from a “few big stones” approach (large mobile operators) to enabling smaller, community-based networks, social enterprises, and alternative business models that can serve “uneconomic” areas.

– **Regulatory and Policy Failures in Addressing Demand-Side Constraints**: Discussion of how current regulatory frameworks focus too heavily on supply-side solutions while neglecting demand-side interventions, wholesale access regulation, and the need for treating digital resources as public goods.

– **Systemic Inequalities Amplified by Digital Technologies**: The panel addresses how digital technologies layer over existing structural inequalities (education, income, gender, rural/urban divides) and amplify rather than reduce these disparities, requiring holistic cross-sectoral approaches.

## Overall Purpose:

This workshop aimed to examine innovative regulatory policies and business strategies for achieving equitable digital inclusion, building on G20 work under South Africa’s presidency. The goal was to shift the global conversation from purely connectivity-focused solutions to addressing the complex demand-side barriers that prevent meaningful internet usage, even where coverage exists.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a collaborative and solution-oriented tone throughout, with experts building on each other’s insights rather than debating. The tone was analytical and evidence-based, with participants sharing research findings and practical examples. There was an underlying sense of urgency about addressing digital inequalities, particularly given lessons from the pandemic, but the conversation remained constructive and forward-looking, emphasizing the need for systemic change and innovative approaches to digital inclusion.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Alison Gillwald** – Workshop moderator, works with Research ICT Africa as knowledge partner to the South African government for the G20, focusing on digital inequality and equitable digital inclusion

– **Carlos Rey-Moreno** – From the Association for Progressive Communication (APC), works on digital inequality, connectivity, inclusion, and community networks, with focus on social enterprises

– **Claire Sibthorpe** – Works with GSMA, specifically in mobile for development and inclusive development, focusing on mobile internet connectivity and digital inclusion

– **Steve Song** – From the Internet Society (previously worked with Mozilla), expert in telecommunications, internet infrastructure, and connectivity solutions

– **Dr Gillian Marcelle** – Independent consultant, extensive experience working across Africa in mobile telephony, policy and regulatory initiatives for universal access, advising operators and regulators

– **Sophie Maddens** – Works with the ITU (International Telecommunication Union), involved with the World Development Telecommunications Conference, focuses on regulatory issues and digital inclusion

– **Audience** – Multiple audience members who asked questions and participated in the discussion

**Additional speakers:**

– **Leandro Navarro** – From eReuse initiative and APC, works on device reuse and refurbishment for digital inclusion

– **Kevin Hernandez** – Works at the Universal Postal Union (UN organization for postal sector), focuses on connecting intermediaries for digital inclusion

– **Peter** – Online moderator/facilitator managing remote participants and questions

– **Leslie** – Technical support person managing online connections

– **Ramune** – Online participant who commented about libraries as intermediaries (mentioned indirectly through Peter)

# Workshop Report: Innovative Regulatory Policy and Business Strategies for Equitable Digital Inclusion

## Executive Summary

This workshop, conducted under South Africa’s G20 presidency, brought together leading experts to examine innovative approaches to achieving equitable digital inclusion. The discussion revealed a fundamental shift in understanding the digital divide, moving beyond traditional infrastructure-focused solutions to address complex demand-side barriers that prevent meaningful internet usage even where coverage exists.

The panel identified that whilst mobile broadband coverage reaches above 95% in many African countries, actual connectivity rates remain below 20%, indicating that most unconnected people live in areas with existing coverage but face other barriers to access. This finding challenges conventional approaches and highlights the need for comprehensive solutions addressing device affordability, digital literacy, and systemic inequalities.

## Key Participants

**Alison Gillwald** from Research ICT Africa moderated the session, bringing experience as knowledge partner to the South African government for G20 initiatives. **Sophie Maddens** from the International Telecommunication Union provided regulatory perspectives, whilst **Claire Sibthorpe** from GSMA offered mobile industry insights. **Steve Song** from the Internet Society contributed telecommunications infrastructure expertise, **Dr. Gillian Marcelle** brought independent consulting experience, and **Carlos Rey-Moreno** from the Association for Progressive Communication represented civil society perspectives on community networks.

Additional contributions came from **Leandro Navarro** on device reuse initiatives, **Kevin Hernandez** from the Universal Postal Union on intermediary organisations, and audience members who enriched the discussion.

## Redefining Digital Exclusion

### Beyond Basic Connectivity

**Sophie Maddens** highlighted that 2.6 billion people remain unconnected to the internet, with persistent divides across rural/urban, income, gender, and age demographics. However, **Alison Gillwald** argued that when meaningful connectivity standards are applied—requiring quality, availability, affordability, devices, skills, and security—the number of truly digitally excluded people approaches 4-4.5 billion.

Gillwald explained that meaningful connectivity, building on previous G20 work, requires that people have safe, enriching, and productive online experiences at affordable costs, not merely minimal broadband connections. Under South Africa’s G20 presidency, this framework has been extended to include digital financial transactions, security awareness, data protection, government services access, and digital identity.

### The Plateau Effect

**Steve Song** identified a critical challenge: internet access growth is plateauing as the telecommunications industry has “connected the easy parts,” leaving billions requiring fundamentally different approaches. **Claire Sibthorpe** reinforced this analysis, noting that 90% of unconnected people live in areas with mobile broadband coverage but face other barriers to usage.

## Primary Barriers to Digital Inclusion

### Device Affordability as the Dominant Constraint

The panel reached strong consensus that device affordability represents the primary barrier to internet access. **Claire Sibthorpe** presented evidence that for the poorest 20% in sub-Saharan Africa, an entry-level internet-enabled device costs 99% of average monthly income, making device acquisition practically impossible for the most vulnerable populations.

**Alison Gillwald** expanded on this challenge, explaining that even when people acquire devices, they often can only use them for basic functions rather than for business or productive purposes due to both affordability constraints and digital literacy gaps.

### Education and Digital Literacy

**Sibthorpe** identified digital literacy as the second major barrier, closely linked to device affordability in creating compound barriers to access. **Gillwald** provided crucial context by explaining that the main determinants of internet access correlate with education level, which in turn correlates with income and employment opportunities.

This reveals the systemic nature of digital exclusion, where existing inequalities in education and economic opportunity directly translate into digital disadvantage. **Sibthorpe** emphasised that digital skills training must be tailored to mobile devices since those are what people actually use.

### Regulatory and Market Structure Challenges

**Steve Song** argued that current regulatory frameworks focus too heavily on competition policy without adequately addressing inclusion strategies. **Alison Gillwald** provided specific evidence of regulatory failures, noting that market reviews and dominance assessments have barely been conducted on the African continent, missing opportunities for wholesale access regulation that could significantly reduce costs.

The discussion revealed significant regulatory barriers that prevent smaller operators and community networks from entering markets. **Carlos Rey-Moreno** highlighted the vast differences in regulatory requirements across countries, with many African countries imposing high transaction costs that effectively exclude community-based solutions.

## Alternative Models and Solutions

### Community Networks and Social Enterprises

**Carlos Rey-Moreno** presented community networks and social enterprises as crucial alternatives to traditional operator models. These organisations are driven by socially motivated intentions rather than purely commercial objectives, enabling them to serve populations that are economically unviable for traditional operators.

Rey-Moreno emphasised the difference between “transactional” and “transformational” services, arguing that social enterprises provide transformational connectivity that creates local value and addresses community-specific needs through circular economies that maintain money locally.

### Ecosystem Diversity

**Steve Song** introduced a compelling ecological metaphor, arguing that telecommunications ecosystems need diversity like healthy forests, with protection for small operators and encouragement of different business models. This diversity is essential because large mobile network operators, whilst successful in their market segments, cannot economically serve all populations and areas.

### Capacity Building and Local Ownership

**Steve Song** argued for building capacity for communities to create, understand, and control their own network infrastructure, referencing Richard Feynman’s principle that “what I cannot create, I cannot understand.” He warned of the risk that without local ownership, communities become further entrenched as consumers rather than empowered as citizens.

### Intermediary Organisations

**Kevin Hernandez** highlighted the critical role of intermediary organisations such as libraries, post offices, and community centres in supporting digital inclusion. He described UPU initiatives to connect every post office to the internet and leverage postal networks for digital inclusion, demonstrating systematic approaches to supporting intermediary organisations.

## Current Implementation Efforts

Several panellists described ongoing initiatives demonstrating practical progress:

**Sophie Maddens** reported that the ITU has launched the first course in Africa for technical promoters at the community level, focusing on capacity building for local network development.

**Claire Sibthorpe** described GSMA’s mobile internet skills training toolkit, which has trained 75 million people across 40 countries, demonstrating the potential for scaling digital literacy interventions.

**Leandro Navarro** introduced device refurbishment and circular economy approaches as potential solutions to device affordability challenges, connecting unused devices with people who need them.

## Fundamental Tensions and Disagreements

### Systemic vs. Technical Solutions

A fundamental disagreement emerged between **Dr. Gillian Marcelle’s** call for addressing the “extractive economic system” as the root cause of digital exclusion and other speakers’ focus on technical, regulatory, and capacity-building solutions within existing frameworks. Marcelle argued that the shift toward deregulation 25 years ago fundamentally changed how telecommunications policy treats people—as consumers in a market rather than citizens with communication rights.

### Measurement Challenges

The disagreement between traditional metrics citing 2.6 billion unconnected people versus meaningful connectivity definitions suggesting 4-4.5 billion people lack adequate digital inclusion highlights fundamental measurement challenges that could undermine policy coordination and resource allocation.

## Multi-Stakeholder Collaboration

**Claire Sibthorpe** emphasised that addressing digital inclusion requires multi-stakeholder collaboration across sectors, as no single entity can solve these challenges alone. **Sophie Maddens** reinforced this perspective, advocating for cross-sectoral collaboration and whole-of-society approaches that integrate digital inclusion with broader development objectives.

The panel grappled with defining appropriate government roles in digital inclusion whilst supporting community-based solutions, acknowledging the tension between state responsibility and community empowerment.

## Unresolved Challenges

Several critical challenges remain unresolved:

– **Scaling Community Solutions**: Moving from small pilot projects to systematic interventions that can address digital inclusion at population level

– **Regulatory Implementation**: Reducing high regulatory transaction costs whilst maintaining quality and security standards

– **Financing Innovation**: Developing financing models specifically designed for smaller operators and social enterprises

– **Wholesale Access Regulation**: Implementing market reviews and wholesale access regulation to reduce dominance and increase competition

## Conclusion

This workshop revealed the complexity and urgency of achieving equitable digital inclusion. **Alison Gillwald’s** closing observation highlighted that “we are not going to be any better off than we were, where the last pandemic put the majority of Africans at risk who were unable to digitally substitute both for the health risk and of course the economic risks associated with lockdowns,” underscoring the life-and-death consequences of digital exclusion.

The discussion demonstrated strong consensus on the inadequacy of current approaches whilst revealing significant disagreements about solutions. The shift from viewing digital exclusion as primarily an infrastructure problem to recognising it as a complex challenge involving device affordability, digital literacy, regulatory barriers, and systemic inequalities represents a fundamental reframing of the issue.

The panel’s emphasis on ecosystem diversity, community ownership, and transformational rather than merely transactional approaches to connectivity suggests that achieving equitable digital inclusion will require innovative policies, financing mechanisms, and collaborative approaches that go well beyond traditional telecommunications sector interventions.

Most significantly, the discussion highlighted the tension between treating people as consumers in a market-driven system versus recognising them as citizens with rights to communication and digital participation. Resolving this tension may be crucial for developing sustainable, equitable approaches to digital inclusion that can address the needs of billions who currently lack meaningful connectivity.

Alison Gillwald: Thank you very much. This is the workshop on Innovative Regulatory Policy Business Strategies to Digital Inclusion, workshop 484. Sorry, we’re just doing a sound test before we start. Want to talk? Hello, hello. Hi. Hello. More, more, more, more, more. Okay.

Carlos Rey-Moreno: Hello. My name is Carlos. I’m very happy to be in Oslo. Okay. Cool.

Claire Sibthorpe: Hi, my name is Claire.

Alison Gillwald: Okay. Good. Right. Good morning, everyone. For those of you who’ve just joined us and are planning to be part of this roundtable discussion, which it is meant to be, please feel free to come up and join the roundtable so that we can involve you in the discussion. If others of you are here for other reasons, of course, please carry on, but for those of you who’d like to come up here and join us, please do. Right. Okay. Well, we’ll start this session, and perhaps just a little bit by way of background is that this session really and I’m going to be talking about the work that’s been done in the context of the G20 under the South Africa’s presidency, which has one of the core pillars, which is being focused on the Digital Economy Working Group, is on equitable digital inclusion. And this very much builds on the previous G20 work done under Brazil, which looked at extending conceptions and measuring meaningful connectivity as developed by the Broadband Commission and the Digital Cooperation Roadmap work that was done, which was looking at issues very much of affordability in addition to universal access at a period of time. And then, of course, the meaningful connectivity as developed by the ITU and CETIC for the Brazilian G20 presidency was very much looking at what you required besides a sort of minimal broadband connection. And so the concept of meaningful connectivity included for, in the Brazilian case, issues of quality, issues of affordability, and then also some acknowledgement from the really extraordinary demand side work that CETIC does across Latin America, but particularly in Brazil, some of the issues of the kind of digital skills, the basic skills that you would need in order to be able to meaningfully access the Internet. So under the South African G20 presidency, the concept of meaningful connectivity has been extended to include some of those out-of-scope factors that the meaningful connectivity work done under the Brazilian presidency was looking at. And those really included what people did online, which are very extensively covered in the African After Access Surveys done by Research ICT Africa. and who is a knowledge partner to the South African government for the G20 and is working with the ITU on extending this conception under the presidency. So there we’re looking at some of the Brazil out of scope issues which include limitations on people’s ability to transact financially. So issues around… Are you able to hear? Are you able to hear? Okay. Issues around being able to, for example, digital inclusion, to transact digitally online, able to be aware of some of the security threats that might exist online, able to effectively protect your data, those kinds of things. So we look at a lot more things than just the connectivity issues, whether you’re able to access government services, whether you have digital ID. It’s a very extensive beyond connectivity survey, although it fulfills all the requirements of the ITU international standards standardization. So the important part of this complementary aspect to that was saying, despite the evidence that we’ve had of these primary demand side constraints, which are attached to affordability, but are not limited only to affordability issues, especially when you’re talking about digital inclusion, not simply connectivity. So the results of the data, both in Brazil and in Southeast Asia, where it’s been done with partners at Learn Asia and across Africa, shows that the main barrier to accessing the internet is the cost of the device. Okay, so that’s within a whole regulatory business model, that cost of that device, as it currently is, and currently regulated, etc., is unaffordable to the majority of Africans. And in fact, little chance of it being affordable under existing conditions. for a lot of the population. The barriers then for data, which are often made as barriers to access, but the barriers to use are then the price of data. But the main barrier is the price of the device. And there are many things one could do to reduce that device, but the question is whether it could be enough to be affordable. But more importantly, what we see is that when even people when people are online or have access to a device, they are unable to use that device very meaningfully. So for example, in our micro enterprise surveys, we see that although a number of people in the South African case, for example, not all across Africa, actually have a smart device, they’re only able to use it for or they only use it for WhatsApp, they’re unable to use this whole array of small business apps that now exist, for example. And so I think the important part of this is that the because these surveys are nationally representative, and we can model them, we can see that the main drivers of internet access and use, the main determinant of whether you’re going to have access and how you’re going to be able to use it, the intensity of use, the scope of use correlates with education. So your level of education, which correlates with income, of course, employment and income, will determine whether you have access to the internet, and the degree to which you’re able to use it meaningfully, or effectively, or optimally. And certainly, whether you can use it for not just transacting that, but for purposes of production or well being of your home, etc. So the main issue that’s been presented with the ongoing work by multilateral organisations within the Broadband Commission and across the UN, is that there is still a focus in addressing the digital divide on issues of connectivity. Current projects is very, very large, multi million euro projects underway that are trying to establish what existing investment is needed to ensure that the last 8% of the population, only 8% of the population aren’t under current mobile broadband coverage. And so the challenge for us is that we’ve got least developed countries throughout Africa, Rwanda, Uganda, Mozambique with above 95% coverage, some of them 99% coverage, and yet they have less than 20% connectivity. So the challenges for many countries is not a supply side challenge, and I am talking just about digital inclusion, so basic level. Of course those economies need to be able to develop 4G and 5G, all sorts of other business things, but in terms of addressing the inclusion problem, some of our challenges have been that we continue to look at costing 4G, 5G infrastructure that’s needed to get universal coverage at a global level, when in fact we could be getting reasonably meaningful connectivity, even at 3G, but arguably 4G, and we have that across many countries, but people are unable, nevertheless, despite having coverage, to use the internet. They either cannot afford it, or they do not have the educational skills to use it meaningfully, and even very often you’re beyond quite basically. So what we are trying with this initiative under the G20, South Africa’s G20 presidency, is to say let’s respond to this now quite large-scale global south evidence that the primary constraints on internet access are demand-side constraints, and start shifting the discussion on the digital divide from a purely connectivity discussion with possibly a little bit of digital skills, digital literacy. That is not going to be sufficient to systemically move countries towards digital equality. So shifting this discussion purely from a connectivity debate to a non-connectivity debate. to actually saying, how do we firstly identify digital inequality, how do we measure it, and what are the policy responses that we need to redress it? And I think this is the sort of fundamental digital equality paradox, this wicked policy problem that we’ve been facing, that the Global Digital Compact tries to address, that multiple rounds of the G20 under India, Brazil, and South Africa’s developing country economies are trying to address, is that actually as we layer these new technologies over existing structural and other inequalities, we are actually amplifying those inequalities. And unlike the old voice and text kind of environment, where one knew that one was doing that between the connected and the unconnected, it’s not only between the connected and unconnected, of course it’s there, but it’s also between those who are barely connected, who are on tiny bits of data, really not meaningfully connected, and those who are able to transact effectively and participate in the economy, seeing as this is a digital economy working group focus, and then of course those who are able to produce using these technologies. So with that longer than intended introduction, let me turn to our panellists here, and of course our wonderful panellists online, which I shall hopefully, are still online, and should have introduced much earlier on, but in the room here we have Carlos Rey Moreno, who is from the APC, from the Association for Progressive Communication, but worked along intersections with various other NPOs over many years in the area of digital inequality and connectivity and inclusion and community networks specifically, but he’s going to talk about new developments around social enterprises today. And then we also have Clare Sipthorpe, who is with the GSMA, and particularly the mobile for development, inclusive development component of that, is going to speak to us about GSMA’s long-standing work in this area and then we’ve got online Steve Song I’m now from the Internet Society I think many of you might have know Steve very well from Mozilla and various other things before and then we also have Dr Gillian Marcelle Marcelle who is joining us I think from from Germany today but usually not and not there who’s a independent consultant but I think many of us will will be known to many of us as working extensively across Africa especially in the very exciting early days of mobile mobile telephony actually initially and then it’s all happened so fast and then of course very much involved with the policy and regulatory initiatives towards getting universal access both at the in within multilateral organizations but also technically advising operators and regulators across the continent so a very exciting team which is finally we’ve joined by Sophie Maddens who works with the ITU and has been very involved with the World Development Telecommunications Conference which you could also update us on who’ve also been preoccupied with the kind of extensive demands on regulators and you know the extended mandates that they’re facing with these rapidly diversifying technologies and the demands that are arising from those so I think we are just going to start off with Sophie telling us a little bit about what the ITU is doing in this area I think she has also been tracking what we’ve been doing within the G20 with the ITU

Sophie Maddens: Thank you, Alison, and good morning everybody, good morning, good afternoon, wherever you are in the world. Alison, if you permit, I’m going to build on your introductory statements, because really you set the scene in a perfect manner, because we all see how digital has and continues to impact all sector and aspects of our lives. So think of e-health, e-agriculture, e-education and e-government services, innovation opportunities for value creation and the skills needed for adoption and the infrastructure for access, because it’s really about access adoption and value creation. That’s what the digital transformation is all about. But we still have 2.6 billion people not connected to the internet. So there is and must be a sense of urgency with all these people still unconnected. And that really is the core of our work, really that sense of urgency to connect the unconnected, but also to make sure that everybody has a meaningful experience through the connectivity. Our concern is as well that the digital divide still persists in many areas, rural areas, urban areas, across income, across gender, across age groups, and there are deep new divides that have emerged for vulnerable groups. So really addressing that demand side is key, because the challenge, it’s not just one of infrastructure development. And of course, as ITU, we work on infrastructure development, but expanding that connectivity is not enough because having access or being online are not sufficient to benefit fully from the connectivity. And today we see deep divides. So we see the risk of creating a multi-speed digital world, as you yourself mentioned, Allison. And so the fear is that a privileged few, those equipped with infrastructure, with skills, with the resources, with the expensive devices, that they are the ones that drive and benefit from AI innovation, while marginalized or vulnerable communities and groups are left behind. And so that’s why that universal and meaningful connectivity, it’s important to consider and address that. And how do we define it? It’s enabling everyone to enjoy a safe, enriching and productive online experience at an affordable cost. It does not mean everybody must be connected all the time, but it describes a situation, as you said, Allison, where anyone can access the internet, but optimally, affordably, whenever and wherever they need. And that also must be an objective of digital policy. So as you said, UMC is built on six interdependent dimensions, quality of the connection, availability for use, affordability of devices, skills and security. And each of these dimensions contribute to that meaningful digital experience and strength, and one cannot compensate for weakness in the other. So UMC has and must continue to be a vital policy objective. And let me highlight one issue here. Data is key to the success of this policy objective, because you cannot fix what you do not know. Achieving UMC also requires a holistic strategy. So we think of infrastructure development, but also policy frameworks, education initiatives, and of course, the multi-stakeholder engagement. And let’s go even further to ensure that no one is left behind, which brings me to digital inclusion, which is that holistic, intersectional approach. are all working together to build a digitally inclusive world for all, regardless of age, gender, ability or geographic location. And that’s why we at ITU are keen to share best practices, foster regional and global collaboration, so that together we can build those inclusive societies, economies and environments. And we provide assistance to our membership to formulate, implement and promote ICT policies and strategies for digital inclusion. And we also work to empower diverse groups, including youth, women and girls, particularly in rural, remote, underserved and unserved areas and communities, but also including older persons like myself, persons with disabilities and persons with specific needs, and of course indigenous people and communities. That to reduce the digital divide and enable everyone to actively participate in the digital world. I’ll leave it at that for now and come back with more thoughts.

Alison Gillwald: Thank you very much for that, Sophie. And we’ll move on to Steve Song to talk about it, just reminding us that in this round we just want to identify what exactly the problem is, your take on what those problems are, and then we’ll move to solutions in the next round. And then also just to, again, invite the audience who want to participate on the roundtable and post questions or just listen closer by, please do feel free to come up and join the conversation. Steve, over to you.

Steve Song: Thanks, Alison. I think we exist at a particularly critical point at the moment in that with two conflicting trends. One is that the growth of access is plateauing, right? And that is… you know, the reason for that is that we’ve connected the parts that are easy and, you know, affordable to connect and that the people can, you know, there’s a business model to sustain connectivity there. The remaining 2.9 billion are going to require a different approach. At the same time, you know, as you mentioned, Alison, you know, telecommunications and the internet is a force multiplier. It’s an amplifier. And so those 2.9 billion people who are unconnected are falling further behind all the time as those with access actually, you know, profit from the benefits of access. So having a strategy now that focuses on the inclusion of everyone is absolutely critical. And I think this points to regulatory issues where we’ve been focused on, you know, promoting competition. Well, that’s still extremely important, but we need to now go beyond competition and have strategies for inclusion. And the existing models, which have been extraordinarily successful to date, especially mobile networks and their growth, you know, remain a tremendously important mechanism for providing affordable access. But there’s limits to how far they can go and what they can do and whether their business models are viable in the most challenging parts of the world. And the way I like to describe this is, you know, if you think of connectivity as a jar you’re trying to fill, you know, in every country there are typically, you know, two or three or four mobile network operators and they’re like stones you’re trying to fit into that jar. And you can fit, you know, three or maybe four stones in that jar and the jar looks full. But, in fact, if you fill that jar with water, still more than 50% of it remains empty. And what is needed now is regulation that actually accommodates those smaller operators, those differently shaped operators, whether they are municipalities or cooperatives or non-profits or national research and education networks that can fill in those shapes in different ways. Another way of explaining this is to say, you know, you think of it like forest management, you know, monocultures have historically been extraordinarily unsuccessful, very vulnerable and not the way to create a healthy ecosystem. In a healthy ecosystem, we want to protect small plants and new growth to create diversity in the ecosystem. And we need to do the same thing with telecommunications and the internet. We need to protect small operators and encourage their growth so that they create different business models, they challenge affordability paradigms and they go where large operators don’t necessarily want to go. I’ll stop there. Thank you.

Alison Gillwald: Thank you so much for that, Steve. I’ve been biting my tongue trying to, since Sophie spoke, to just urge you to look at the paper where we do, applying the universal meaningful connectivity conception, not even our own more extended equitable digital inclusion conception, point out that that 2.6 unconnected in terms of basic connectivity as previously described, in terms of the application of meaningful connectivity, which the G20 under Brazil very courageously looked at Brazil and their universal access figure previously, their internet penetration figures previously above 80%. when they applied the Meaningful Connectivity formula went right down to 20%. So, using again the same extrapolation, yes, 2.6 people unconnected and, as Sophie points out, such bad data that those could be out by, you know, several hundred thousand, possibly millions. But that’s another part of that we are also trying to promote. But that the figure more like the people who are really not digitally included, substantively digitally included, is much closer to 4, you know, 4 billion or 4.5 billion in terms of that definition that we’ve used before and that we are now using in the South African G20 process. So, it’s getting those unconnected but also those not meaningfully connected online. So, Claire, perhaps if you’d come in there because Steve has mentioned some of the limitations, but despite the success of the mobile operators, especially on the African continent, there are some limitations now in reaching those so-called uneconomic areas or subscribers.

Claire Sibthorpe: Yeah, thanks so much, Alison. And I’m going to talk about, you know, obviously from the mobile perspective because that’s, you know, mobile is the primary way most people and often only way most people access the internet. And I think, you know, we also do these country national representative surveys like Research ICT Africa and find exactly the same things as you’re finding. And if we look at the problem, so if in terms of mobile internet, if 57% of the world is now connected to mobile internet, of the unconnected, if you break it down, there’s only 4% who don’t live in areas without coverage, mobile broadband coverage. So, the majority of those, so 39%, which is 90% of the unconnected, live in areas where there’s covered, but they can’t use it. So, if 90% of the people who are not connected, it’s not a coverage issue. It’s the fact that they have other face, other barriers to using it. And the people who are unconnected, and I think we’ve mentioned, it’s been mentioned already, it’s predominantly people in rural areas, people lowering… lower education, lower income, women, people, persons with disabilities. So we, for example, just published our latest mobile gender gap report, which shows that women in low and middle income countries are 14% less likely than men to use the internet. And in fact, that gender gap has stalled. So we’re not seeing, you know, a great deal of progress in that regard. But in our surveys, we look at, you know, why, why are they, why are people not using the internet or not getting online? And then once they’re online, why are they only using it in these very limited ways, as you said? And, you know, our research has similar findings to you. So the biggest barrier to getting online is the affordability of a device. And you mentioned it, you know, also about how it’s, it’s challenging. And I think if you, you know, I was, I’m always struck by the number from Africa, if you, you know, in our analysis, we looked at if you are in the poorest 20% of people living in Africa, in sub-Saharan Africa, you’re, it’s costing 99% of your average monthly income to buy an entry level internet enabled device. So these are, this is a very significant problem that, you know, needs a lot of thought in terms of how to address it. It’s not an easy solution. The other top, there’s two top barriers to getting online is the affordability of device. And the second is literacy and digital skills. And then once people go online, we ask people, what’s stopping you from using it more? Why is it this sort of limited? And in our research, it’s showing again, safety and security concerns become a big issue, affordability, but more of data at this point also emerges. So, you know, we have to, we have to look at the barriers around affordability, skills, relevance of, you know, relevant content and services, safety and security issues. If we’re really going to move the needle and we’re really going to get people online, not just online, but using it to help meet their life, life needs. And it’s sort of, it’s that usage gap. It’s that, that really is where we need to be focusing our efforts to, to really move the needle. And, and like you, it’s, you know, segments like women who are are you know lower income lower education are disproportionately affecting but we’ve also done you know some analysis that looked at if you held um you know the same women and men of the same income education levels you know there would still be for example a gender gap because things like social norms and and these other factors also play so if you’re wanting to you have to consider you know these structural inequalities as well as social norms and some of these these big barriers um and they need um they need we need to think beyond coverage and we need to think you know and we need to think beyond you know a certain single stakeholder as you know and you know how we can address these these barriers as as has been said repeatedly in this panel you know now it’s only exacerbating inequalities and it’s absolutely critical that we we move this needle.

Alison Gillwald: Thank you so much and um as before we carry on I’m just going to ask the audience um particularly to um sort of prime themselves we’ve been talking about and we’ll continue to talk about a lot of um access solutions regulatory strategies to reduce prices issues of affordability but I think you know a lot of this demand side evidence is demonstrating that we can no longer solve this problem with uh siloed sort of sectoral solutions there’s you know we can we can remove taxes from mobile phones we can do a number of things but actually we really need transversal digital policies that will focus on our education challenges these fundamental challenges that we are facing um human development challenges and that you know the um gender questions as have been historically posed which homogenize you know women um really aren’t helping us with policy interventions that really need to be focused at you know women at the intersection of those multiple other inequalities so if you look overall at issues of um sort of rural deficits in terms of access to the internet and you compare it with gender rural is worse off now obviously there’s also a lot of women concentrated in those rural areas But in fact, if you look at some of our data, it’s an issue of the poor and it’s also issues of kind of location and those kinds of things. So if they were actually, you know, they’re poor men who are worse off than urban poor women just because of their proximity. So we really need sort of far more nuanced interventions, but we also need interventions that are way beyond certainly the telecommunication sector, communication sector, the historical sectors that look at this problem. If we can go to Carlos, Carlos, some of the problem setting has been stated, so please do just add to that. But if you’d also just move to what you see as some of the possible solutions that we could deal here on the access side, and then we’re hoping for some really innovative responses on some of the non-access ways in which we can address this problem as well.

Carlos Rey-Moreno: Thank you so much, Alison, and I want to go back to one of the points that you mentioned in the introduction around costing, how much money is needed to close the digital divide from an infrastructure point of view. And I believe there are way too many conversations about costing, how much does it cost to close the digital divide, and I believe we are going to hear a new figure at some point this year, and not that much about how that investment could be used differently, how to enable other models. Also coming from the G20 in Brazil, the Digital Investment Infrastructure Initiative from the ITU and several second-tier development banks stated that stakeholders should think beyond typical for-profit models to cover 70% of the remaining access gaps. So addressing the same actors, considering the same ways of building infrastructure is leading to some part of this inequality that we see, due to the return on investment that they are seeking, due to other practices. as we’ve heard. But it is surprising to also see that the Global Digital Compact is referring to investing in local networks to close the digital divide, right? Because why it happens that some of these local networks are socially driven models that go way beyond the transactional way that we’ve understood the internet so far. Enterprises are transacting for a price, a service that is internet connectivity, period, right? There are these other models based on socially driven intentions, I would say, or bottom lines, social bottom lines or environmental bottom lines, social enterprises that go beyond those transactional models, sorry, those transactional services. They provide social inclusion services, they provide transformational services that at the end of the day create a circular economy, maintain the money locally to develop other small enterprises that develop the local skills required not only to run that particular local network but to run other businesses in the community that contribute to creating culturally relevant content and services using sensor networks, for instance, and that contribute quite significantly to local innovation. We were talking about innovation before. The amount of innovation that can come from the communities and from the rural areas is astonishing, addressing their own community needs and their own problems. Yet education systems are more proposing that those rural people go and contribute to the economies as we see them in urban areas and not to the problems that they are facing locally. So thinking through how that supply and demand meet with this type of interventions that stimulate circular economies locally, I think it’s also a way of thinking about the equitable digital inclusion. that you alluded to also. Thank you.

Alison Gillwald: Thank you so much. We’ll come back to that. Before we go into speaking a little further on some of the solutions, are there any questions from the room as we also try and gather some questions online? I know we’ve got a number of people online. Are there any questions or comments from the room at this point? Okay, Leslie, what do we have online? If we can turn to Peter for that, but also to hear from Dr Gillian Marcelle as well. Yep, yep. Okay, so while we gather some of those online questions, we are also going to ask Dr Gillian Marcelle to come in. Dr Gillian Marcelle, if you could also add to your extensive experience on what some of the problems are, but also move on to what you see as some of the solutions, which I know you’ve put a lot of thought into. Certainly, and thank you so much, Alison, for the invitation to join this panel with so many pioneers.

Dr Gillian Marcelle: Actually, I want to go in a different direction, if I may, because I think it’s important to actually put a theoretical framing on this question of how do we actually achieve equitable digital inclusion, because all of those premises and all of those words actually matter. And in listening to my colleagues, and I was listening very carefully, what I didn’t hear come up is the root causes that lead to exclusion and that lead to inequity. And the root causes, in my view, are the fact that we have an extractive economic system. on which we are then trying to layer demand and supply side solutions. So, to my mind, equitable digital inclusion will be achieved when laws, regulation, policy, ecosystem strengthening, entrepreneurship, finance and investment take place. But if they do within the status quo, then nothing will change. And we will still have what we’ve called the unconnected last mile problems. And we will still be talking about the things that we’ve been talking about for 25 years. And my own work in this area has been, as Alison mentioned, from the policy and regulatory lens, but I was also deeply involved in financing, and not financing at a small scale, but financing from the pioneers of the African telecoms revolution. And I will say that there was innovation at a narrative level in that time, which is now nearly 25 years ago, because when we were making models to look at whether or not investing in Nigeria was a good thing for MTN to do, there was no data. And so when I hear my colleagues talk about the fact that you can’t get reliable information about the cost of a handset, or what you would price data at, that leaves out a fundamental issue, which is risk. We want to encourage the private sector to take risks and to benefit from a return. And so whatever we do from the policy and regulatory domain should not exclude or leave out the fact that some private sector solutions and providers will succeed and others will fail. And there should not be an attempt to stop that from happening under the presumption that that is the way to connect the unconnected. One final point. If a mobile handset like the one I have here is an asset for production and for well-being, there are in existence alternative collateral models for financing things that people need. And so in looking at the things that we need to be doing, not only from a policy and regulatory side in the telecoms or in the tech sector, we also need to be looking at what are the enabling conditions that would allow for a variety of solutions that tackle all of the very good things that I’ve heard from my colleagues, but do not assume that the direction of change is going to be coming from policy and regulatory only. Because that then leaves out a very important engine of change which has been shown to work and I’ll leave it there for now and say a little bit more about what I think needs to be done so that we don’t end up with a digital society that is anywhere like the United States where you’ve had Silicon Valley and Silicon Valley values and norms produce a digital society that is about as toxic as we could possibly imagine. I’ll leave it there for now.

Alison Gillwald: Thank you so much for that Dr Gillian Marcelle. I’m hoping that we’ll get some responses to that. I did want to draw your attention those of you who had a chance to look at the issues paper to indicate that this is not only a policy and regulatory alternatives. We’re looking at alternative business strategies, we’re looking at cooperatives, social enterprises which we’ll come back to. I think we are though looking at some of the public interest policy and regulatory failures that we’ve seen and I think we are looking at new shifts that are acknowledging that despite the enabling conditions that have been created for the extraordinary investments that we’ve seen by mobile networks on the African continent but also now of course fiber networks across the continent. The creation of these conditions prioritized the supply side valuation of resources and really neglected the demand side valuation of resources that would recognize these critical resources as digital public goods and increasingly global digital public goods that require demand side interventions if they are to serve as critical inputs in the economy and to be universally accessible as we require digital public goods to be and so one of the mechanisms that we think is a real travesty in the long theoretical and economic regulatory competition levers that they’re meant to be is you know the market reviews that have barely been conducted on the African continent and the demonstrate the need to assess dominance in markets and effectively remedy that and I think many you know there’s an extraordinary evidence of the impacts of wholesale access regulation in opening up markets that has been got to the point where it’s meant to be implemented and would have changed the environment very very differently to what it is now and through the ethos of creating the certainty for investors and getting the certainty for investors I would argue Dr Gillian Marcelle there’s been you know an open conversation to that they that commercial supply-side assessment spectrum with anything you know that that’s gone without creating the public value the commons aspects of this that would have allowed greater inclusion and I know Steve your work has also focused on this and now not only kind of wholesale you know leased facilities and those kinds of things but of course very importantly with mobile operators in many parts of the continent actually being the dominant operators no longer the old fixed networks your access to API’s that would have just changed this environment entirely and I just wondered if you want to pick up on that.

Steve Song: Yeah I think a wholesale access is increasingly a massive barrier to the development of affordable access typically in many countries it it costs more to transit inside the country via fiber than it does to connect internationally. And there has to be mechanisms for bringing down the cost of backhaul, which is increasingly the highest burden of cost, especially for small operators in terms of operating costs. Things like structural separation, breaking out the backbone from the incumbents and setting it up as a separate company is a great step forward. But I think there are even better things to do. One of my favourite examples is Corus in New Zealand, who is formerly part of the incumbent and was separated out into a backbone network across New Zealand and who have implemented effectively flat pricing across the country. So anywhere you can connect to a Corus network, you can peer at the same price as if you are in the capital city or very close to it. And that’s a huge issue. We see national research and education networks like Tenet, Sanren in South Africa implementing the same thing so that universities connect to their national backbone network at the same price, no matter where they are, whether they’re rural or urban. If you were to implement those strategies across, say, state-owned backbones, you would unlock competition. You would incentivise small operators to deliver services in rural areas where they simply can’t at the moment because of the cost of backhaul.

Alison Gillwald: Thanks very much for that, Steve. Claire, I was wondering if you wanted to come in on the mobile and the regulatory and possibly what alternatives GSMA is looking at addressing these so-called uneconomic areas. If you do have non-technical or sectoral strategies, if you’re actually supporting educational other initiatives, please I highlight those as well.

Claire Sibthorpe: Yeah, as I said in in sort of the opening comment, I think that the biggest issue in terms of connectivity is, is, you know, not the coverage. I mean, obviously, coverage is important, but it’s not only a coverage issue. And on the coverage point, I think, you know, where those areas where it’s not economical for operators to cover, you know, looking at in how they can be covered. And the different models is really important. But I do think that we need to also really look at these, you know, coverages, the data shows coverage is not going to get people connected and using the internet coverage alone. Obviously, coverage is an important prerequisite, but alone, it’s not as I said, 90% of the people are who are not using it are covered. So what we do need to do is address things like affordability of devices. And I think there’s a range of strategies that can be done there. You know, taxation is a big issue, reducing taxation, looking at innovative device financing schemes, looking at subsidy schemes, because, you know, the cost of these devices is not on its own going to get down to the level that the people who are not connected can can afford. So we need to think about that. But literacy and digital skills are also critical. And again, I think that requires, you know, multi stakeholder multi agency intervention. So we need to be building in digital skills, you know, in with across education and training programs of the government across, you know, and, and, you know, and ensuring that those things that those initiative help highlight, you know, how the internet is relevant for different segments. I think a lot of the time we see in our research, people say this is not for me, because they see role in, you know, maybe in the marketing or awareness campaigns role. I mean, urban men and not not necessarily reflecting themselves and their life needs, but also ensuring that those training campaigns build in elements around how to keep yourself safe and secure online and address all those those issues. And I think in terms of the mobile operators, I think first of all I think it can’t be done by one stakeholder, but mobile operators are doing this, so they’re doing a range of device financing, looking at data that they get from their networks as alternative credit scorings to provide device financing, providing a lot of digital skills training. We have, GSME has created a mobile internet skills training toolkit which is a free open source creative commons training content that can be used to provide people the basic skills to get on to use the internet and use it safely. It’s now been used across 40 countries, been trained, I think 75 million people now at least have been trained, so I think we’re trying, because I think we found a lot of the digital skills campaigns are also focused on laptops and tablets, but those are not the devices people are using their hands, and so they weren’t able to translate that training into ways that they could use in their lives, so we’ve tried to address that, some of that gap, but I think it requires interventions by quite a range of people, and I think we need to be focusing on these sort of, as you say, the demand side barriers, and we need to be thinking across stakeholder groups as to how we do that to make sure that we’re really able for people to get online and get online safely and meet and use the internet to meet their life needs.

Alison Gillwald: So thanks very much Claire. Carlos, could you talk to us a little bit about, we’ve spoken about some of the sort of failures, regulatory failures and those sorts of things, but and in regard to some of the more kind of systemic issues around, you know, that would change things at scale around getting greater competition and through wholesale access and driving down prices, but they’ve also been, I mean when Steve was speaking in the beginning about a few big stones or just like, you know, lots of stones, I think as Steve’s often said, you know, let a thousand flowers bloom kind of models, the ability of niche innovations community services, now social enterprises services to break into the system as you know had relatively high regulatory transaction costs and you know what do you see as the key levers there if one accepts that these are actually the way that one can you know address some of the systemic challenges that we’re facing.

Carlos Rey-Moreno: Thank you, thank you so much Alison. Well I think one of it or the most important one is recognition. Recognition and a deep insight into the value of a diverse diversified ecosystem of actors. We see that still there are you know like this mindset of only traditional large operators countrywide operators can solve certain problems and again those are doing great but only contributing or providing services from that transactional perspective that I was alluding to and not entering in the transformational aspect that the internet could bring into this into this aspect. So that would be the one recognition that other actors are needed and that other actors are contributing because when those actors are provided with an enabling regulatory environment well here in Europe for instance where there is a vast array of small operators providing fiber optics wireless you name it even private mobile network mobile networks in certain areas you just need to declare your activity your provision of telecommunication services. In the Philippines you need a congressional franchise the Congress needs to allow you to deploy infrastructure so reducing the regulatory barriers of what do you need to actually start some sort of a business practice whether social or not certainly is gonna allow to for those smallest stones that Steve was alluding to to actually grow and thrill right. I think also touching a bit on what Dr Gillian Marcelle was saying about that we need to establish innovative financing and investment models that allow this small and localised operators to thrill. I have the feeling that in the financial sector, a lot of the interest has been on supporting the interest of capital and not supporting the interest of people. I think 20 years after Wysys, we need to start recognising the financial models to think through or to understand how we can support smaller operators, smaller ticket sizes, understanding what are the needs of those smaller actors, which of course are critical and there are starting to be some very interesting models around this. And lastly, capacity building. We are super proud to have launched last week the first course with the ITU in Africa for technical promoters at the community level after five editions in Latin America. And I think once you have that regulatory frame, once you have the recognition, once you have the regulatory framework, once you have the innovative financing and investment models in place, if enough skills and enough awareness is around for people to take benefit and advantage of this financing and these regulatory interventions, we see this thrilling. In Kenya, there are 20 community networks already and more will come. In Colombia, there are across the same number. In Brazil, there has been a magnificent collaboration with the regulator. There are more than 50, right? So when those things start to appear, more of those diversified actors and local innovation is going to take place to create those other impacts that I was alluding to in relation to circular economies, local innovation and culturally relevant content and services.

Alison Gillwald: Carlos, I suppose some of the scepticism is kind of scaling us. You know, that yes, great to see that capacity building, but how many people have been trained? How many people can be trained? So, you know, what kind of more systematic… opportunities there are. But I think some of the kind of collective response. So if one, you know, enables all of these smaller providers, if one enables different kinds of capacity building, if one gets curriculum, actually, you know, it’s probably more entrenched in curriculums and stuff. Collectively, we could we could see some outcomes. But I think one of the main challenges, one of the things has been around like demand stimulation, that actually for the people now who are not online, big challenges around awareness of the Internet. These are obviously least educated people. And of course, very little local language content for people. So there seems to be a particular role for these social enterprise organizations, community organizations that have are able to also produce content that could stimulate the Internet take up.

Carlos Rey-Moreno: So someone that was said at a session yesterday was in relation to to fair trade. Right. Was in relation to creating the same environment as has been created for social and solidarity economy in other sectors, agriculture, retail, you name it, to to to really reach the scale that there would be enough products and trainings and whatnot. As you were saying, whole of government approach. If this was a course that every pivot in every country would teach how someone could start a small business in that area around telecommunications as they do with agriculture or with retail or with car mechanics or whatever. Certainly you can you can start creating this type of a scale that you were that you were referring to. And the same with with mechanisms, with financing mechanisms. We were talking this morning at a discussion with someone that in Kenya, you need at least 20 percent of interest to pay in 20 percent of interest rates to get a loan for for for for a small operator, because there is not that understanding. There is not that awareness in the financial sector locally that these small operators can actually do any of this. right so that type of financial sector deepening that type of engaging with local financial institutions so they can make available products that are accessible for small operators and small social enterprises in the country would be very much necessary I think for for that side of scale going again to the thousand flowers blooming that Steve was talking about but we need to look at it ecosystemically if it’s three or four philanthropic organizations giving grants here and we’re not going to tackle any problem whatsoever.

Alison Gillwald: And of course you say a whole of government but, I think some of the problems have been is there’s been a lot of investment focus in government and across government but actually what we need is a whole of society kind of approach that hopefully government will play a more active role in creating that public value kind of environment that we want for this I’m hoping we can go on to some questions before we go back to Dr Gillian Marcelle actually Dr Gillian Marcelle’s got her hand up so let’s take Dr Gillian Marcelle’s question Dr Gillian Marcelle’s response while we look Leslie I’m hoping that you can see Peter or can Peter hear me directly okay so if we can just line up some questions Peter and then we’ve got a question fortunately at our very small round table please do come and join us Dr Gillian Marcelle do you want to go ahead and then we’ll take one from the floor and then we’ll go online

Dr Gillian Marcelle: certainly what I wanted to come back to is the issue of dominance and your point about that the and I am assuming that you’re talking about regulatory agencies in developing countries have not taken the opportunity to look at dominance and industry concentration and so on in the tech sector and of course we know exactly why that is the case because so much of what happens and what called the digital space, gets its way of being from what is happening in the United States. And 25 years ago, a decision was made that deregulation and not even applying, Alison, this will be in your wheelhouse, not even applying broadcast regulations to all of these platform companies. So that the zeitgeist saw regulation and public interest, the notion that tech should serve the public interest, shifted. And it shifted 25 years ago. And so we must acknowledge that. Because the reason that we are struggling with Connectivity Plus and so on is because people are being treated like consumers in a neoliberal framing rather than citizens who have the right to communication and the rights to access. 25 years ago, we would be having a different conversation. 25 years ago, we also had pushed the multilateral organizations into recognizing the concepts that you are speaking about, you know, the global commons, telecoms and so on as global public goods. And we need to get back to that. Because if we don’t, and recognize just how far that shift has happened, unlike when Nelson Mandela was saying in 1996, that there are more fixed lines in all of Manhattan, than they are in all of sub-Saharan Africa. Now, what we can say is there are people in the Bronx in New York who cannot get access to internet. So it is the underlying economic system, not even finance. The economic system says you treat people like consumers in a market for profit maximization and then you layer everything on top of that. So that’s what I wanted to come back to because all of the things that we are talking about, market concentration, regulatory capture, the limits of regulatory power, the sort of the meekness of those interventions also come from that shaping of the frame. And there are things that we can do. We should not accept that it’s a foregone conclusion but we must also see from where this has originated as well.

Alison Gillwald: Thank you so much Dr Gillian Marcelle and we have a question from our roundtable. If you’d introduce yourself and then we’ll see somebody standing up there as well. Please if you want to join us, do. Please go ahead.

Audience: Hi, can you hear me? Yes, so I’m Leandro Navarro. I’m coming from an initiative called eReuse and also from APC and I wanted to highlight, because it’s being discussed, when it comes to talking about inclusion, it makes sense to count in let’s say millions or billions, not unconnected, but when it comes to meaningful connectivity probably you don’t find it on the amount of packets, IP packets that you get, but on what you do. What you do, the labels, the value and so forth. But also as it was commented, I mean I haven’t seen anyone connected directly to the internet if they connect to a device. And so, typically, we’ve been looking in community networks or in network infrastructure to the last mile. But I think it’s important to look at the last meter, because the last meter is when the action happens, when the meaningful part occurs. So imagine that we are talking about water. It’s very important to have water. But it depends if I have a glass or if I have a toilet or if I have a swimming pool. It’s completely different. And that is the meaning there. I’m swimming. I’m doing exercise or I’m eating because I have a pot and I’m cooking my food. So you cannot see it on the network layer. So I think it’s important to look at the last meter. And in the last meter, well, there are devices. It’s not the same. I mean, we have been doing projects in which we go to schools in Uganda and we replace mobile phones by laptops because mobile phone is not useful for learning. But a laptop can be. So it makes a big difference. So once we go beyond the challenge of bringing the Internet there, then the next thing is which device is there. And, you know, it’s interesting to see that there are unconnected people, but also there are unused devices. And then regarding affordability, there is this interesting opportunity that there are devices which are no longer used by one owner, but still they have a lot of years of life span. And then, I mean, refurbish them, refurbish them and collecting them and giving them to people that need a device that shouldn’t be the last model in the market can also help. Connecting the unconnected by supplying them unused devices and helping the environment. So, I mean, there are a lot of potential in the last meter and also in creating affordable devices which do not need to be manufactured again. So, well, I think it’s, yeah, it’s been discussed. I think the user device makes a lot of sense, a lot of meaning to the user. Of course, the user has to know what to do with it, but the device is not the same glass than some input.

Alison Gillwald: Thank you so much for that input. I think the importance of connectivity and the device, these are absolutely necessary conditions. So nobody’s saying that these access issues aren’t absolutely critical. I think the device refurbishment is a nice example. I think we have it in the issues paper, but I think it could be. Brazil, for example, has really very interesting examples of recycling within their circular economy policy and practice that are kind of scalable. Because I think in many of our environments, they’ve been little small project here for retraining people or something like that. So kind of getting those, you know, there’s innovation out of constraint that Africa is famous for. Models more effectively working to get the kind of systemic and scaling. I am hoping that the questions, some questions that we got lined up from the thing in here are also going to deal with some of the non-access issues. But please go ahead anyway.

Audience: Hi, so my name is Kevin Hernandez and I work at the Universal Postal Union, which is the UN organization that deals with the postal sector. And my question is specifically about the non-access issues. So I think, and I want to thank all of you for all the solutions that you put forward on this panel. They’ve all been very interesting. And specifically, I want to thank, I don’t know your name, but the person who mentioned something about community-based organizations. Because I think they also play a very critical role in the last mile, not just in connecting people, but also dealing with the immediate risks of digital exclusion. And what do I mean by that? I mean, in the case when someone is not connected and all the services in their country are digitalized and you can no longer access things in person, where do people usually turn to? They usually turn to a library. and they turned to a post office that might be offering the government services and digital financial services or they might turn to an NGO or they might turn into some other community based organization. But I don’t really hear many solutions that are put forward that kind of focus on connecting these intermediaries because these intermediaries play a big role in ensuring that the immediate effects of exclusion are not are not felt today. So we’re not going to we’re not going to connect all the unconnected anytime soon. There are billions of them. So what do we do now to ensure that these kind of intermediaries are not left in a place where they’re left to fend for themselves without any support? We need to also support these intermediaries. And how do we do that? And also, I just want to flag that I work for the UPU and I work for a project that aims to connect every post office to the Internet and leverage them for digital inclusion. So anybody who would like to learn more, you can come and find me. I have some concept notes about our project. Thank you.

Alison Gillwald: Thank you so much for that very useful input. And to say that, of course, a lot of the work that has been done by APC in this area and Mozilla with Steve. But anyway, I think just to emphasize that if the importance of intermediaries hasn’t been highlighted enough, it absolutely should be. And I think when we were talking about some of the high transaction costs for community services and those kinds of things is precisely to enable that kind of intermediary intervention. I think another interesting policy aspect to that, though, the challenge has been not to allow the state to abdicate its responsibilities to, you know, we’ll just let those communities sort out this little kind of minimalist network there or something, but to actively support them as part of programs. And it’s a state’s responsibility to do that and or to ensure that the licensed operator or whatever actually does serve those communities. So I think it’s an important policy debate. And I’m still hoping for some grand strategy. that’s going to solve the underlying human development challenge, so let’s go online and see what we have there. Peter can you hear me? I keep looking at Leslie thinking that he’s got the connection to you, but can you hear me?

Audience: Thank you, yes I can. There was a useful comment from Ramune about another form of intermediary. I quote, local libraries when equipped with sufficient connectivity and computers for public use contribute effectively to digital inclusion of communities they serve. Besides physical access tackling, also digital literacy, online safety and privacy issues, as well as walking people of all ages to digital learning opportunities. So putting that as a question, would you and the panel agree with that, and are there any other of those forms of intermediary like the post office that we just heard about?

Alison Gillwald: Great, so we’ve actually got a minute for each of the panellists, so I’m going to let them respond to each other, which I think some have already done, and then also just to take that last question if you’d like to. Steve, would you like to go ahead?

Steve Song: Thanks Alison. I think there’s a thread here that strikes me as very important. That relates to intermediaries such as post offices and libraries, but also to community networks, and that is the fact that we focus a lot on the capacity building of the consumer, right, to be able to use the network, but we don’t talk as much about the ability to build the network and capacity building to build and own networks. I came across a lovely quote from Richard Feynman, one of the great physicists of the 20th century. He said, what I cannot create, I cannot understand, and I think this is true of the internet, and it gives me pause when I think about solutions like Starlink, which are… The very remarkableness is kind of also their flaw in the sense that when you connect a Starlink dish you just turn it on and it connects to the internet and that’s it. Which is remarkable, but it also means that you don’t know what an IP address is, you don’t know what an autonomous system number is, you don’t know how to build the network and it is a loss of agency and control as a result. So I think that national research and education networks that are building their own fiber backbones, the same potential exists for post offices and libraries not to just receive connectivity but to be involved in the solution, in the provision of connectivity and I think there’s a huge risk when organizations are not involved, when citizens are not involved in that, you get situations such as we see now with AFRINIC, the agency responsible for assigning IP addresses across African countries, is in crisis because in order to participate in AFRINIC you need to be an internet service provider, you need to have an autonomous system number, you need to be an agent of building networks and if we don’t actually focus and invest in that ability to invest, then we’re further becoming, as Julian says, consumers rather than

Alison Gillwald: citizens in this process. Thanks Steve. Carlos, one minute please. No, less than that.

Carlos Rey-Moreno: Well, we live in a diverse world with diverse societies and in many ways the internet has been homogenized in the way that it’s been provided and I think at the center of this solution for equitable digital inclusion we need to embrace the diversity of solutions because Again, as Leandra was saying, like many people will use the internet differently, and talking to what Steve was saying in relation to autonomy, we need to enable the capacity of diverse ways of engaging, building, using, etc. And neither from the investors, nor from the regulators or the ministries, that ecosystem is there to enable and support that diversity, right? The risk is there, people are willing to take the risk, people are willing to do these interventions, but they don’t have an enabling ecosystem.

Alison Gillwald: Thanks very much. Sophie, please, you’ve got like 25 seconds.

Sophie Maddens: All right. Carlos, you gave me a perfect segue, because I’ve heard, I think all of us agree, we need a different mindset, right? So we need a different mindset to close the gap, that difficult gap. But that different mindset needs a different set of tools, skills and processes. So I think it’s not just about policy and regulation, but really that approach and experimenting, right? We need the variety of solutions and being bold enough to be able to experiment. You think of the regulatory sandboxes. So I think agility is key, boldness is key, having the necessary regulatory skills is key. And I think I’ve also heard that cross-sectoral collaboration, right? We need to think, if you think of digital financial inclusion, that’s automatically the working between the sectors. I think all of that is key.

Alison Gillwald: Thank you so much, Sophie, because that was quite a nice summing up for us that we’re not going to have time to do of highlighting some of those issues. We’ve got offline. Claire, if you want to just give us a 10 second response, please do.

Sophie Maddens: Sure. I mean, I guess I think what we’re all alluding to is there’s no one sort of silver bullet, that everything we do needs to be grounded in the realities of the people we’re trying to connect and connect in a meaningful way. And so I think we need and I think also what is critical is not only understanding people’s needs and barriers, but also taking a kind of holistic approach. It’s not about just giving coverage or giving devices. we need to think about skills, relevant content, that ecosystem that Carlos was talking about, enabling that kind of, you know, so we need to be thinking holistically about the barriers and it needs to be grounded in really the needs and barriers of the different communities and it is different, people communities are different and their needs and barriers are different and and thinking about that in that way.

Alison Gillwald: Okay, I think we don’t have a chance, Dr Gillian Marcelle, unless you have a off, we’re off time, but if you want to have a five second, 10 second response, please go ahead. I think you should trust your own instincts,

Dr Gillian Marcelle: Alison, because I think you know exactly how we should re-centre sustainable development into this agenda for what is being called digital inclusion. So thanks again for your leadership.

Alison Gillwald: Well, thank you so much for joining us, Dr Gillian Marcelle, and for all the pioneering work over so many years. My only thing, again, I can’t help myself, yes, Steve, Starlink does come down and you just switch on the internet, but it also doesn’t come free, even though a lot of the discourse is that this is this incredible free service that’s going to provide all, solve all our universality problems. And the other thing I just want to leave us with, with lots of these really important access solutions, but that are not, you know, that are kind of community or collective access solutions, is that should we face another pandemic, which we inevitably will, but if we should face it this month, this year, we are not going to be any better off than we were, where the last pandemic put the majority of Africans at risk who were unable to digitally substitute both for the health risk and of course the economic risks associated with lockdowns. They could not get to community centres, they could not get to libraries and they could not get to schools and they saw the greatest negative outcomes, death, from being unable to mitigate that risk. digitally. So onwards and forwards with these solutions and I’m still looking forward for some of those non-access solutions that we can take forward into the final G20 equitable digital inclusion responding to evidence of demand side constraints. Thank you so much. Thanks to our fabulous panellists and to the audience. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Agreement points

Coverage is not the primary barrier to digital inclusion

Speakers

– Alison Gillwald
– Claire Sibthorpe
– Steve Song

Arguments

Many African countries have 95-99% coverage but less than 20% connectivity, indicating supply-side solutions aren’t addressing the core problem

90% of unconnected people live in areas with mobile broadband coverage but face other barriers to usage

Growth of internet access is plateauing as we’ve connected the easy parts, leaving 2.9 billion requiring different approaches

Summary

All speakers agree that infrastructure coverage exists in most areas but people cannot access or meaningfully use internet services due to other barriers, indicating that supply-side solutions alone are insufficient

Topics

Development | Infrastructure

Device affordability is a major barrier to digital inclusion

Speakers

– Alison Gillwald
– Claire Sibthorpe

Arguments

The main barrier to accessing the internet is the cost of the device