Uncategorized

Summary

This discussion focused on the dual role of artificial intelligence in both creating and combating disinformation, examining threats to democratic dialogue and potential solutions. The panel was organized by the Council of Europe as part of an Internet Governance Forum open forum, bringing together experts from policy, technology, and civil society sectors.

David Caswell opened by explaining how AI has fundamentally changed information creation from an artisanal to an automated process, enabling the generation of entire narratives across multiple platforms and extended timeframes rather than just individual fake artifacts. He highlighted emerging risks including automated personalized persuasion at scale and the embedding of deep biases into AI training models, while also noting opportunities for more systematic and accessible civic information. Chine Labbé from NewsGuard presented concrete evidence of AI’s impact on disinformation, revealing that deepfakes in the Russia-Ukraine conflict increased dramatically from one case in the first year to sixteen sophisticated examples in the third year. She described how malicious actors now create entire networks of AI-generated fake news sites, with over 1,200 such sites identified globally, and demonstrated how AI chatbots frequently repeat false claims as authoritative facts approximately 26% of the time.

Maria Nordström discussed Sweden’s policy approach, emphasizing the importance of the Council of Europe’s AI Framework Convention as the first legally binding global treaty on AI and human rights. She highlighted the challenge of balancing public education about AI risks without further eroding trust in information systems. Olha Petriv shared Ukraine’s practical experience, describing their bottom-up approach including industry self-regulation through codes of conduct and the critical importance of teaching children AI literacy and critical thinking skills, particularly given their vulnerability to disinformation campaigns. The discussion concluded with actionable recommendations including preserving primary source journalism, developing AI literacy programs, creating certification systems for AI chatbots, and potentially establishing public service AI systems trained on reliable data sources.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **AI’s dual role in disinformation**: The discussion explored how AI both amplifies disinformation threats (through deepfakes, automated content creation, and AI-generated fake news sites) while also offering potential solutions for detection and fact-checking

– **Scale and automation challenges**: Speakers emphasized how AI has fundamentally changed the disinformation landscape by enabling malicious actors to create sophisticated false content at unprecedented scale and low cost, with examples including over 1,200 AI-generated fake news sites and deepfakes becoming increasingly believable

– **Systemic failures in current approaches**: The panel critiqued existing disinformation countermeasures as largely ineffective due to scale mismatches, political polarization, and the focus on individual artifacts rather than systematic solutions

– **Education and literacy as key solutions**: Multiple speakers advocated for AI literacy programs, particularly targeting children and teachers, with innovative approaches like using AI chatbots to teach critical thinking about AI-generated content

– **Regulatory and governance frameworks**: Discussion of legal instruments like the Council of Europe’s AI Framework Convention and the need for industry self-regulation, certification systems, and consumer empowerment to incentivize truthful AI systems

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to examine the complex relationship between AI and disinformation, analyzing both the threats AI poses to democratic dialogue and the opportunities it presents for combating false information. The session sought to identify practical solutions and policy approaches for maintaining information integrity in an AI-driven world.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a serious, analytical tone throughout, reflecting the gravity of the subject matter. While speakers acknowledged significant challenges and risks, the tone remained constructive and solution-oriented rather than alarmist. There was a notable shift toward cautious optimism in the latter portions, with speakers emphasizing actionable solutions like education, regulation, and technological safeguards, concluding with a call to transform AI “from a weapon to a force for good.”

Speakers

– **Irena Gríkova** – Head of the Democratic Institutions and Freedoms Department at the Council of Europe, moderator of the panel

– **David Caswell** – Product developer, consultant and researcher of computational and automated forms of journalism; expert for the Council of Europe and member of expert committee for guidance note on implications of generative AI on freedom of expression

– **Chine Labbé** – Senior Vice President and Managing Editor for Europe and Canada at NewsGuard (company that tackles disinformation online)

– **Maria Nordstrom** – PhD, Head of Section Digital Government Division at the Ministry of Finance in Sweden; works on national AI policy at the Government Office of Sweden and international AI policy; participated in negotiations of the EU AI Act and the Council of Europe’s Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence

– **Olha Petriv** – Artificial intelligence lawyer at the Centre for Democracy and the Rule of Law in Ukraine; expert on artificial intelligence who played active role in discussion and amending negotiations of the Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence of the Council of Europe

– **Mikko Salo** – Representative of Faktabarida, a digital information literacy service in Finland

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

**Additional speakers:**

– **Frances** – From YouthDIG, the European Youth IGF

– **Jun Baek** – From Youth of Privacy, a youth-led privacy and cybersecurity education organization

# AI and Disinformation: Navigating Threats and Opportunities for Democratic Dialogue

## Executive Summary

This comprehensive discussion, organised by the Council of Europe as part of an Internet Governance Forum open forum, brought together leading experts from policy, technology, and civil society sectors to examine the dual role of artificial intelligence in both creating and combating disinformation. The panel explored how AI has fundamentally transformed the information ecosystem, creating unprecedented challenges for democratic dialogue whilst simultaneously offering potential solutions for maintaining information integrity.

The discussion was structured around the Council of Europe’s three-pillar approach to addressing AI and disinformation: integrating fact-checking into AI systems, implementing human rights-by-design principles in platform development, and empowering users with knowledge and tools to navigate AI-mediated information environments.

## Opening Framework: Council of Europe’s Approach

Irena Gríkova, the moderator from the Council of Europe, established the context by highlighting the organisation’s role as “Europe’s watchdog democracy and human rights watchdog” representing 46 member states. She introduced the Council’s three-pillar guidance note addressing AI and disinformation: fact-checking integration, platform design principles, and user empowerment strategies.

Gríkova emphasised the global significance of the Council of Europe’s AI Framework Convention, the first legally binding international treaty addressing AI’s impact on human rights, democracy, and the rule of law. The convention has attracted international attention, with signatures from non-European countries including Japan, Switzerland, Ukraine, Montenegro, and Canada.

## The Transformation of Information Systems

David Caswell, a product developer and computational journalism expert, provided the foundational framework for understanding the current information crisis. He explained that society has undergone a fundamental transformation in its information ecosystem over the past 15 years, moving “from a one-to-many, or more accurately, a few-to-many shape, to a many-to-many shape.” This structural change represents the root cause of current disinformation challenges, with AI serving as the latest evolution in this transformation.

Caswell emphasised that AI has fundamentally altered information creation processes, transforming them from artisanal, human-driven activities to automated, scalable operations. This shift enables the generation of entire narratives across multiple platforms and extended timeframes, rather than just individual fake artefacts. He noted significant improvements in AI accuracy, citing leaderboard data showing hallucination rates dropping from “15% range to now I think the top models in the leaderboard are 0.7%.”

A concerning development highlighted during the presentation involves the potential for powerful actors to reshape foundational AI training data. The moderator read from Caswell’s slides about Elon Musk’s announcement that Grok would be used to “basically rebuild the archive on which they train the next version of Grok,” effectively enabling the rewriting of humanity’s historical record at the training data level.

## Empirical Evidence of AI’s Impact on Disinformation

Chine Labbé, Senior Vice President at NewsGuard, provided compelling empirical evidence of AI’s growing impact on disinformation campaigns. Her research revealed dramatic escalation in the sophistication and frequency of AI-generated false content, particularly regarding the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Deepfakes increased from one case in the first year to sixteen sophisticated examples in the third year, demonstrating both improved quality and increased deployment.

Labbé described how malicious actors now create entire networks of AI-generated fake news sites designed to appear as credible local news sources. NewsGuard has identified over 1,200 such sites globally, representing a new category of disinformation infrastructure operating at unprecedented scale. She provided a specific example of the Storm 1516 campaign, which created a fabricated video involving Brigitte Macron, and mentioned John Mark Dugan, “a former deputy Florida sheriff, who is now exiled in Moscow” who has created “273 websites.”

Critical research findings revealed that AI chatbots repeat false claims approximately 26% of the time overall, with specific testing of Russian disinformation showing rates of 33% initially, dropping to 20% two months later. A BBC experiment found that “10% of the cases, there were significant problems with the responses. In 19% of the cases, the chatbot introduced factual errors, and in 13% of the cases, there were quotes that were never in the original articles.”

Labbé identified “vicious cycles of disinformation,” where AI-generated false content becomes validated by other AI systems, creating self-reinforcing loops of synthetic credibility. Malicious actors exploit this through “LLM grooming” – saturating web results with propaganda so that chatbots will cite and repeat it as factual information.

## Policy and Regulatory Responses

Maria Nordström, representing Sweden’s national AI policy efforts, discussed the importance of developing comprehensive regulatory frameworks whilst acknowledging the limitations of purely legislative approaches. She highlighted a critical policy challenge: finding the right balance between educating the public about AI risks without further eroding trust in information systems.

Nordström posed a fundamental question: “To what extent is it beneficial for society when all information is questioned? What does it do with democracy and our agency when we can no longer trust the information that we see, that we read, that we hear?”

The Swedish approach recognises that hard law regulation has limitations in requiring “truth” from AI systems, making consumer empowerment and choice crucial components of any comprehensive strategy. This perspective emphasises market-driven solutions alongside regulatory frameworks, empowering users to make informed decisions about AI systems.

## Practical Experience from Ukraine

Olha Petriv, an artificial intelligence lawyer from Ukraine, provided insights from a country experiencing active disinformation warfare. She described Ukraine’s bottom-up approach to AI governance, including industry self-regulation through codes of conduct developed whilst awaiting formal legislation.

Petriv emphasised the particular vulnerability of children to AI-generated disinformation, sharing examples of Ukrainian refugee children’s faces being weaponised in deepfake campaigns. She argued for early AI literacy education, stating: “It’s not just a parental issue, it’s a generation’s lost potential… if we will not teach children how to understand news and understand AI, somebody else will teach them how to think.”

Her approach to children’s AI education focuses on critical thinking and algorithm understanding rather than prohibiting AI use entirely, recognising that children will inevitably encounter AI systems and must be equipped with the skills to use them responsibly.

## Educational Solutions and Audience Engagement

The discussion included significant audience participation, with contributions from Mikko Salo representing Faktabarida, Finland’s digital information literacy service, Frances from YouthDIG, and Jun Baek from Youth of Privacy. These contributions highlighted practical implementation challenges for AI literacy programmes and the need for specific guidelines and support materials for teachers.

The discussion revealed innovative approaches to AI education, including using AI chatbots themselves to teach children about AI literacy. However, questions remained about the optimal age for introducing AI concepts, with debate about whether children as young as 10 could effectively understand these concepts or whether secondary school age was more appropriate.

## Opportunities and Positive Applications

Despite significant challenges, speakers identified substantial opportunities for AI to enhance information systems when properly implemented. Caswell argued that AI can enable systematic rather than selective journalism coverage, processing vast amounts of digitally accessible information impossible for human journalists to handle comprehensively.

AI offers potential to make civic information more accessible across different literacy levels, languages, and format preferences. This democratising aspect could help bridge information gaps that currently exclude certain populations from full participation in democratic dialogue.

Labbé suggested that AI tools could assist in monitoring disinformation and deploying fact-checks at scale, provided humans remain in the loop to ensure accuracy and context. She noted that platforms have been “disengaging from that commitment” to fact-checking, making AI-assisted solutions potentially more important.

## Market-Driven Solutions and Consumer Empowerment

A significant theme involved the potential for consumer awareness and market pressure to drive improvements in AI system reliability. Labbé noted that AI companies currently prioritise new features over safety and accuracy, but argued that user pressure could shift this balance toward reliability.

The speakers discussed the need for certification and labelling systems for credible information sources and AI systems, helping users identify trustworthy content in AI-mediated environments. However, this approach requires raising public awareness about the scale of misinformation problems in current AI systems, as many users remain unaware of the frequency with which AI chatbots repeat false information.

## Key Challenges and Debates

The discussion revealed both areas of agreement and ongoing debates. While speakers agreed that AI has fundamentally transformed information creation at unprecedented scale and that education is crucial for building resilience, disagreements emerged regarding the effectiveness of current fact-checking approaches.

Caswell argued that previous anti-disinformation efforts have been largely ineffective due to scale issues and perceived bias, whilst others defended the work of fact-checkers. There was also debate about the extent to which AI can replace original source journalism, particularly in areas requiring human presence such as war journalism and personal storytelling.

## Recommendations and Future Directions

The panel concluded with concrete recommendations including developing AI literacy educational materials and programmes, creating certification and labelling systems for credible information sources, and preserving primary source journalism as the foundation for AI-based secondary journalism.

The discussion emphasised implementing the Council of Europe’s three-pillar approach comprehensively, addressing both technical and social aspects of the challenge through coordinated efforts across regulatory frameworks, educational programmes, market mechanisms, and technological solutions.

## Conclusion: Transforming AI from Weapon to Force for Good

The discussion concluded with Gríkova’s call to transform AI “from a weapon to a force for good” in the information ecosystem. This transformation requires coordinated efforts across multiple domains: regulatory frameworks that protect human rights whilst enabling innovation, educational programmes that build critical thinking skills, market mechanisms that reward truthfulness and accuracy, and technological solutions that preserve human agency in information consumption.

The speakers demonstrated that whilst AI poses unprecedented challenges to democratic dialogue, it also offers significant opportunities for improving information systems. The key lies in developing comprehensive approaches that address both technical and social dimensions of the challenge, ensuring that democratic institutions can adapt to and thrive in an AI-mediated information environment.

Irena Gríkova: Good afternoon everyone. Welcome to the IGF open forum on AI and disinformation countering threats to democratic dialogue organized by the Council of Europe. My name is Irena Gríkova, I’m head of the Democratic Institutions and Freedoms Department at the Council of Europe and I will be moderating this panel. I’d like immediately to thank my colleagues Giulia Lucchese sitting just here and Evangelia Vasalou who is online for helping to put together this panel and will be also producing the report and helping with the moderation. In this session we will be delving in one of the most pressing challenges facing democratic societies, in fact all societies today, probably not just democratic societies but we are, I’m personally concerned about democratic societies in the first place. The use of artificial intelligence in generating and spreading disinformation but we will also hopefully discuss the role of AI can play in actually curbing and limiting the spread of disinformation. Combating disinformation is a top priority for the Council of Europe as a human rights organization. For those of you who may not be familiar with the Council of Europe, especially those coming from other continents, the Council of Europe is what I call the older and larger brother of the European Union, an organization of 46 member states with a particular focus on human rights, democracy and the rule of law. We call Europe’s watchdog democracy and human rights watchdog and as such of course we are extremely concerned with phenomenon of disinformation and all the other threats to democracy today. The Council of Europe is also always on the forefront of how technological development impacts our societies and the rights-based ecosystem that we have. created and this is why the Council of Europe prepared and opened for signature and ratification last year the first international treaty on AI and its impact on democracy, human rights and the rule of law. And we are now in the process of developing sector specific policy guidelines and also supporting member states in implementing specific standards in different areas including in the field of freedom of expression. The Council of Europe has also been at the forefront of analysing the impact of AI generated disinformation and its role for resilient rights based pluralistic and open information ecosystem. In particular last year we issued a guidance note on countering online mis and disinformation which is uploaded as a background to this session also in the chat but there are a few copies here in the room in case you still want an analogue copy of the disinformation of the guidelines. And this note offers practical guidance really very very specific and detailed pointers of how states and other partners in this democratic system that we are trying to protect, digital platforms, editorial media and other stakeholders can fight disinformation in a rights compliant manner. Now it’s a soft instrument, this is not a binding treaty but it does include the collective wisdom of all of our member states and a large number of experts, some of them sitting around here. And therefore it’s really interesting and useful and it’s organised around three pillars, the main things that were suggested here and mind you in the process, at the time when it was actually developed and written AI was yet not that prevalent and prominent so it’s not so much AI. The pillars are fact-checking, calling for independent, transparency and financial sustainability by both states and digital platforms. Especially, platforms are urged to integrate fact-checking into their content systems. Unfortunately, we’ve seen in the past few months that the platforms have been disengaging from that commitment, and that’s an issue in itself. Platform design is the other pillar of that disinformation strategic approach. The Guidance Note advocates for human rights by design and safety by design principles. These are key words that we’ve been hearing a lot during this IGF and also in the previous editions. These are the basic principles of an information society, the way we’d like to see it. With emphasis on human rights impact assessments and process-focused content moderation, in order to favor nuanced approaches to content moderation and content ranking, preferable to blunt takedown approaches. Perhaps today we will explore how AI can help us achieve such a nuanced content moderation approach. The third pillar of that Guidance Note is user empowerment. I particularly see that user empowerment is becoming more and more prominent as a tool, as a strategy, as a dimension of fighting harmful content, including disinformation. And that includes all kinds of initiatives at local level, community-based, and also collective. We are working on the role of AI in creating a resilient and fact-based information ecosystem. We are working particularly on applied documents that will be even more specific and more practice-oriented. And we support implementation by states through projects, through field projects that we actually work, in which we work directly with our member states. Just to introduce the panel, and I’ll give the floor to our first panelist in a minute, our thinking at the moment, and these are the areas that we really are looking into in some more detail as policy strategies, how to reinforce public service media. Public service media has always been the cornerstone of a truth-based and authentic and quality information system, and they are threatened. We need to find ways of strengthening public service media, but also to enhance the capabilities of the regulatory authorities, their mandates, their independence, to navigate the rapidly evolving digital environment. Another line of thought is how to demonetize the disinformation economy, to cut off the financial incentives that help to amplify disinformation content. And then, indeed, another topic that’s been very much on the surface here in Norway, how to enforce regulation, co-regulation, and how to strengthen regulation. There are dissenting voices against regulation. Obviously, we hear them as well, but for the Council of Europe moving towards stronger regulation for platform design. to ensure transparency and public oversight in content moderation and curation is a must. And finally, investing in the resilience of users. We are talking a lot, there’s a lot of debate and publications and research about the supply side of disinformation. How do we ensure that the content produced and visible there is less disinforming or less harmful? But then what about the demand side? And I’m putting this in inverted commas because the demand is not necessarily explicit or willing, but you know, the use of information. What do we do about users and how do we make sure that they actually make use and demand and go for quality content even when it’s there? So our speakers, and in the first place, David Caswell, will tell us what is the state of the art now? How is now AI impacting disinformation and what can we do about it? Because the problem, it’s amplifying the problem clearly, but it’s maybe part of the solution. And we have an amazing panel here for you. Without further ado, I will introduce David, who is a product developer, consultant and researcher of computational and automated forms of journalism. And full disclosure, David is also an expert for the Council of Europe. And he’s a member of our expert committee for the guidance note on the implications of generative AI on freedom of expression, which is forthcoming. So keep an eye on the Council of Europe website. You will be informed about it by the end of the year. So David, please share your perspectives about AI and disinformation challenges and hopefully some solutions. Certainly.

David Caswell: Thank you for the introduction. Yeah, before I start, I just want to just… I’ll just make it clear that I’m not an expert on misinformation. My expertise is around AI in news and journalism and kind of civic information. So I focus kind of less on the social media side of things than I do on news. But I think a lot of this applies either way. Before kind of getting into what AI is doing in the space of disinformation, I want to just talk a little bit about what was happening before AI came along. So if you can imagine pre-ChatGPT, or even most of our ecosystem now. And the big thing that changed that kind of made this last 10 or 15 years of disinformation and misinformation activity, the thing that changed that made that necessary was this. We basically changed our information ecosystem from a one-to-many, or more accurately, a few-to-many shape, to a many-to-many shape. So we went from a situation where only a few entities, mostly organizations, could speak to a large audience, to this situation where anybody could speak to a large audience. And this was the internet, and then social media, of course. But this was a change in the distribution of content, the distribution of information. And this is the technical change that caused this cascade of activity over the last 15 years, including around disinformation and misinformation. I think, again, before AI, or generally before AI, it’s worth sort of looking at how the response to that era of kind of disinformation, how that went. And I would suggest that it hasn’t gone well. I would suggest that there aren’t many people on any side of any of the arguments that would suggest that it’s been very successful and kind of worked well. Just to kind of go through some of the things that I think… people kind of think about here or perceive. One is that it was generally ineffective. I think there’s an issue around scale here, that the scale of communication on the internet, on social media is such that things like fact checking and all that provide just a tiny, tiny drop in this vast ocean of information. I think there’s a perception that there’s a certain alarmism around it. There’s a lot of research that’s coming out on this with different ways of looking at it, but essentially the net of it is that the concern around these things seems to be restricted to a relatively small portion of the population. Most people think it’s kind of less of an issue. I think there’s a sense or a perception that there’s a certain self-interest around misinformation and disinformation activities, and that has to do with this overlap with journalism. And so there’s a sense that as journalism kind of was diminished and its power reduced in the internet era, that a lot of that activity kind of went over into the misinformation, disinformation space. On the political side, I think we’re pretty aware that there’s, on the left-right continuum, there’s a sense that the whole kind of disinformation, misinformation space has a left-coding bias to it. This is certainly what Mark Zuckerberg used as his justification for turning off the fact-checking activity at META. I think there’s another kind of politicization that’s going on here, which is more this elites versus populism politicization. That’s easy for me to say. The thing that’s happening here, and there’s a really good book by Hugo Mercier about this, is that in the elites versus populism dimension, misinformation and disinformation is used as a reason or an excuse or a narrative as to why populism is happening. It’s like misinformation and disinformation is causing this by kind of fooling half the population. So I think that’s that’s been an issue. I think there’s an issue around most of this being anecdotal it’s and not just anecdotal case by case by case, but anecdotal in terms of the artifacts focusing on individual artifacts, individual images, individual facts, individual documents, these kind of things, not on systems, not on sort of the processes and the systems that that do this. These are just kind of my my views, but I think it’s a general perception in a lot of parts of society that this sort of, you know, this attempt to put some order on the information environment has not been successful. So let’s turn to AI here and I think in this AI era, the thing that’s changed now, you know, with with chat GPT, it’s been building for a long time before that, but roughly since chat GPT the thing that’s changed now is the this transition from an artisanal form of creation of news and journalism to an automated form of news and journalism. And so this this is quite profound because news and journalism and the creation of knowledge generally was one of the last kind of handmade or artisanal activities in society. And with AI we now have tools that can at least partially automate that which is a new thing for the information ecosystem. And that includes the gathering of news-like information, the processing of it, and especially the creation of experiences of it for consumption. And that’s the I think the fundamental new thing here. In terms of, you know, what are these risks that AI poses that are new? You know, there’s a lot of them. I think an obvious one is the risk of accelerating this fragmentation of shared narratives. You know, this has been, you know, obviously, you know, a building a building issue for the last so since the internet came along basically, but it’s It’s important to keep in mind that this is not just a news or journalism kind of concern. This is happening in all knowledge-producing activities. It’s happening in scientific publishing and activity publishing. It’s happening in government intelligence services. It’s happening in enterprise knowledge management. The fundamental mechanisms behind this are really kind of broad. I think there’s a second risk that’s not perceived very widely about the ability with AI to extend disinformation beyond individual artifacts, like deepfakes or individual facts, to entire narratives that extend over many, many different documents and images and videos and media artifacts, and that extend over long periods of time, days or weeks or months or even years. An example of this in the manual space is this Hasbro program that the Israeli government have been running for many years, about 2,000 people that basically kind of operate on influencing narratives across the world, and with AI we may be entering into a world where that can be automated and also be made accessible to many, many more people and agents and governments and other actors. I think there’s a major risk that’s developing around automated and personalized persuasion at scale, so you could think of this as radicalization at scale or grooming at scale, to use the word that the Brits like to use. There’s been a couple of very, very interesting papers that have come out on this recently. One of them is actually not a paper because they had an ethical issue in the data collection and so it wasn’t an official paper, but generally it seems that these AI chatbots are already substantially more persuasive than humans. And so that’s their effectiveness. And then you kind of combine that with the fact that you can operate these individually in a personalized way across the whole population at some level. I think that’s a new and significant risk. And then I think there’s another deep risk that really is underappreciated here, which is that as we start to use these models as sort of core intelligence for our societies, that there are biases in these models. And we talk a lot about biases in AI models now, and that’s very true. There’s biases in the training data. There’s attempts to resolve this in things like system prompts or in the reinforcement learning from human feedback that kind of helps to train these models. But even more fundamental than that, we’re starting to see intentions to place deep biases

Irena Gríkova: into the model. So one, which is this tweet here that showed up recently, is Elon Musk. And he basically built this large language model, Grok. Its intention was to be what he called a maximally truth-seeking large language model. And it was a little too truth-seeking for his taste. So he’s been getting into this Twitter argument or X argument with Grok over the last little while. You can sort of see this interchange happening where you’ll ask a question and he doesn’t like the answer and so on. And so he has just recently announced that they’re going to use Grok to basically rebuild the archive on which they train the next version of Grok. So they’re going to write a new history, basically, of humanity, and then use that to train Grok. That’s an example of building a large language model that’s broadly used with the biases deep in the training weights. That’s a very significant risk. Oops. So I think there’s a, you know, if you kind of go all the way down to maybe the foundations or the first principles here, there’s a new deep need or a new… The New Core Requirement in the Information Ecosystem, and this is articulated very, very well in this book, this recent Yerval Noah Harari book. And what he says in this book is, which I think it’s very well evidenced and argued there, is that we’ve depended for 400 years on these mechanisms, like the scientific method or like journalism or like government intelligence or like the courts. And these mechanisms have two characteristics, they’re truth-seeking and they’re also self-correcting. So they have internal biases that move them towards the truth. I think there’s actually a third requirement in there that maybe wasn’t as apparent until these large language models got going, and this is just a kind of a personal interpretation. I think that our methodology or our mechanisms for things like journalism and civic information, I think they also need to be deterministic rather than probabilistic. In other words, they need to be specifically referenceable and explainable and verifiable and persistent in an archive, all of the things that large language models are not. Just to kind of turn to the opportunities here, because the news is not all bad. The scale of opportunities, I think, is of the same order as the scale of the risks. There are some real opportunities. I think one opportunity is this possibility that we might have news or journalism or civic information or societally beneficial information that is systematic instead of selective. In other words, the scarcity issues around collecting and processing and presenting or communicating this information, those scarcity issues go away and we have a level of systematic transparency that is vastly greater than it is today. I think that’s a very real possibility, scaling the amount of civic information. in the ecosystem. I think another one is this new ability to make civic information and news and journalism accessible to many, many, many more people, regardless of literacy or language or style preference or format preference or situation or whatever, because now we can adapt this information to each individual. That’s a very significant new thing. And I think those two things together, the scale and the accessibility, means that we do really have, I think, this possibility, if we were to build towards that, of basically having relevant, accessible, societally beneficial information available to everybody at a much, much deeper degree of relevance and personal relevance than we’ve had before. And then also, finally, I think one of the challenges of information now is it feels very overwhelming. We have a news avoidance problem at scale. We all have a personal sense of being overwhelmed by information. I think AI helps us address that. I think the thing that we’re primarily being overwhelmed by is units of content, not information. And we have this new possibility here with AI to not just have dramatically more information, but also to feel more in control and more mastery of that information. So just to wrap up here, I’d like to suggest an ideal for what we might aim for as an opportunity in this AI-mediated information ecosystem that’s forming.

David Caswell: And I think it’s worth looking at this in terms of a continuum. And the continuum goes from, say, medieval ignorance, way down at one end, to godlike omnipotence or maybe a Star Trek universe level of awareness and omnipotence about your environment. And if we look at that kind of continuum as an ideal, we’ve made a lot of progress along that line. We’ve gone from a situation before the printing press and before literacy where really people didn’t know much about their world at all. apart from their immediate experience. And through these inventions and these cultural adaptions to those inventions, we’re at a point now where the amount of information we know about our world almost instantly, at our fingertips, is just staggering compared to what would have been available to an average citizen in, say, 1425. But I think there’s also no reason to think that we’ve stopped, that we’re at the optimum place on that continuum, that we’re at the place where the democratic dialogue is as good as it could ever be, or was recently as good as it could ever be. I think we’ve got a ways to go. I think the AI that exists now, diffused into our information ecosystem with the right governance and the right orientation and so on, that could move us a considerable way up that continuum. If we get something like AGI, maybe in five or 10 years, I think that could move us even further. And then at some future hypothetical point, maybe some kind of super intelligence moves us even further again. So I think there’s a lot of technical challenges here, governance challenges, safety and security challenges, of course. But I think as an ideal, trying to move to the right of that continuum is a good place to be. I’ll just leave that there.

Irena Gríkova: Grant, thanks a lot, David. That was a lot of food for thought. Personally, I was quite struck by how the AI can create now a new plausible reality, just by the sheer scope and sophistication and scale of it. So how do you fact check your way out of a completely new alternative reality? Obviously, you can’t. And I really liked your idea that we are spiraling and going up and up and up much faster than we can actually conceptualize it, from information to content, and then hopefully to information again. But let’s see if we have some more practical tools that we can use to do that. And our next speaker is Chine Labbé. She’s a senior vice president and Managing Editor for Europe and Canada at NewsGuard. NewsGuard is a company that tackles disinformation online, and Chine will explain how they do it, what they do it, and what are the results.

Chine Labbé: Hi, thank you very much for having me. So I’ll start right away by explaining how AI is and has supercharged disinformation campaigns to this day. The first thing that we’re seeing is that malign actors are, and you all know that, increasingly using text, images, audio, and video generators to create content, deepfakes, images, et cetera. Just to give you one piece of data to illustrate that, take the Russia-Ukraine conflict. During the first year of the war, out of about 100 false claims that we debunked at NewsGuard, one was a deepfake of Zelensky, very pixelated, very bad quality. Now fast forward to the third year of the war, we had 16 deepfakes, super sophisticated, super believable, that we debunked. Now there’s still only 11% of the false claims that we debunked that year, but they increased quite astonishingly. And of course, the conflict that was more recent, Israel-Iran, has also shown lots of deepfakes being shared, images, short images circulating online. So this is just one example, a video that was shared as part of a Russian-influenced campaign called Storm 1516, shows a person whose identity was weaponized, it’s a real person, but modified with AI, to say that he has been sexually assaulted by Brigitte Macron, the wife of Emmanuel Macron, France’s president, when he was a student. He actually was a student of Brigitte Macron, but never said that, never was sexually assaulted. The video is very believable, all the more so that the person exists. If you Google him, you can see that he was a student of Brigitte. So all that, of course, has increased a lot. Now the second thing that we’ve seen in terms of how AI is supercharging this information is the use of AI tools to imitate credible local news sites. So basically create entire networks of websites that look just like a local news site that share maybe some reliable information and then some false claims. And that’s entirely generated with AI, maintained with AI, with no human supervision. The photo that I put here is a quite infamous Kremlin propagandist. He’s an American fellow, former deputy Florida sheriff, who is now exiled in Moscow. His name is John Mark Dugan, and he alone is behind more than 273 websites that he’s created using AI with an AI server to imitate first local news sites in the U.S. with names that really sounded like local news sites, and then in Germany ahead of important elections. So these AI content forums have grown exponentially over the past few years. We started monitoring them in 2023. May 2023, we had found 49 of them. Now fast forward to today, we have counted 1,271, but that’s probably the tip of the iceberg. Thank you, what we’re seeing and what we can actually confirm as being AI-generated. Why? Because it’s really cheap to create an AI-generated news site. We did the test, a colleague of mine, and that’s an essay that he wrote about the experience in the Wall Street Journal, paid $105 to a web developer based in Pakistan, and in just two days he had his self-running propaganda site. and many others. So this is a very simple, very simple propaganda machine, password protected, don’t be alerted, we didn’t want to put any further on the web, but it was just, it just took two days, $105. So now all of these sites, these over 1,000 sites that we found, AI content farms, they’re not all publishing false claims or only running false information, but they’re all, I would argue, they’re all a risk to democratic dialogue. Why? Because if you have a false claim, if you have a false decision, which is the case for all these websites, you have the risk of hallucinations, factual errors and misrepresentations of information. Now, that’s just one example. A recent one, the BBC conducted an experiment in December 2024, they asked 100 questions to four chatbots based on their information, so they gave the chatbots access to their website, which they found to be false. So the chatbots were able to read the questions, they were able to read the questions, and in 10% of the cases, there were significant problems with the responses. In 19% of the cases, the chatbot introduced factual errors, and in 13% of the cases, there were quotes that were never in the original articles, or that were modified by the chatbots. And just a recent example of such a problem, the BBC conducted a study in the United States, and they found that there were very existing authors, but very nonexisting books next to their names, along with some existing ones, so all the more troubling. Now, just imagine small errors like that, slowly but surely polluting the news that we consume, and I would argue that this is a very concrete threat to democratic dialogue. So, what we’re seeing is that, in particular, in the case of disinformation, is that AI chatbots are often repeating disinformation narratives as fact. this vicious circle where basically chatbots fail to recognize the fake sites that AI tools have contributed to creating and they will cite them and present authoritatively information that’s actually false. So you have information created by AI, generated, then repeated through those websites and validated by the AI chatbots, the really vicious circle of disinformation. Now in early 2023, the idea that AI chatbots could be misinformation super spreaders was hypothetical. We looked at it because it seemed possible, right? But today it’s a reality. Chatbots repeatedly fail to recognize false claims and yet users are turning more and more to them for fact-checking, to ask them questions about the news. So we saw it recently during the LA protests against deportation. This is just a very striking example. There was a photo of a pile of bricks that were circulating online being presented as a proof, as evidence that the protests were staged, were organized, orchestrated by someone that was putting bricks there to encourage the movement and that they were not organic. The photo was actually from New Jersey, so it was not in California. Then users online turned to Grok and asked Grok to verify the claim. And even here you have an example when even when a user was pushing back saying, no, Grok, you’re wrong, Grok would repeat the falsehood and insist that no, no, no, no, it is true. And in recent days, we saw the same thing with a false claim stating that China had sent military cargo planes to Iran that was based on actually misinterpreted flight-tracking data. And we’re doing that every month now. We’re auditing the main chatbots to see. How well they resist to repeating false claims and what we’re seeing month-to-month is that in about 26% of the time they repeat false claim Authoritatively, this is just one example asking Mistral about a false claims pushed by Russian disinformation sites And Mistral is not only saying that it is true, but is also citing known disinformation websites as its sources Now the problem is not just an English language problem It’s a problem in every languages. We did before the AI action summit in Paris earlier this year We did a test in seven languages and we proved that it was a problem in all languages and especially prevalent in languages where There’s less diversity of the press. So where the the language is dominated by state-sponsored narratives Now if I just told you that we had put a drug in the open To sell in the commercial world where 26 of the pills out of a hundred are poisoned Would you find it’s okay, and that’s the question that we have to ask ourselves when talking about information and AI and the last thing I want to Raise here is that this vulnerability that we are still failing at putting guardrails against is well Identified by malign actors so they know that by pushing Russian narratives, for example in the case of Russian actors They can change AI and influence the result to chatbots so this is a process that’s been well identified by a network called the Pravda Network a network of about 140 sites in more than 40 languages. That’s basically a laundering machine for Kremlin propaganda publishing more than 3 million pieces of content a year and With no no audience the websites have very little followers very little traffic But their goal is just to saturate the web results so that chatbots will use their content and we did An audit and we found that in 33% of the time the chatbots would repeat the disinformation from We did again the test in May, two months later, and it had gone down to 20%. We don’t know what mitigation measures were put in place, but pretty much the same. And I’ll just end here, because I’m running out of time, to say that to conclude, basically with generic TVI, disinformers can now fund less for more impact. So as David said, it’s just the scale that is changing dramatically, the automation. And now they can also influence information that is given through AI chatbots, through this process of LLM grooming. And I’ll just end on a positive note, yes, AI can help us fight disinformation. So we’re using AI for monitoring, for deploying fact checks. We can even use generic TVI, as David said, to create, for example, new formats of presenting content, as long as the human is in the loop. But it’s hard to foresee a world in which we’ll be able to label all false, synthetic disinformation. So that’s why I think a very important factor today is also to label and certify credible information, and allow users to that way identify credible information. That’s what we do at NewsGuard. There’s also the Journalism Trust Initiative. Trust My Content is another example, and I think that’s a very positive way forward.

Irena Gríkova: Thank you, Shin. I think we’ve entered the era of mistrust. We seemingly cannot trust anymore anyone, not even news sites, which may be fake. And I think this is dangerous, not just for the democratic dialogue, but democracy itself. Because when there is such a widespread distrust within society, between individuals, that the democratic institutions collapse, because democracy is ultimately built on trust. Maybe we need public service AI chatbots that are trained on only reliable data. Because unfortunately, even efforts to try and defend legitimate media, editorial media Maria Nordstrom. Maria is PhD Head of Section Digital Government Division at the Ministry of Finance in Sweden. Maria works on national AI policy at the Government Office of Sweden, as well as with international AI policy. In particular, she was participating in the negotiations of the EU AI Act and the Council of Europe’s Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence. Please, Maria, the floor is yours.

Maria Nordstrom: Thank you, and thank you for having me. So I’ve had the pleasure and the privilege to currently be on the Bureau of the Committee on AI at the Council of Europe, and the main task of the committee was to negotiate the Framework Convention on AI, already mentioned, which was adopted and opened for signatures last year. And it’s the first, as mentioned, legally binding global treaty on AI. It is global because it’s open for signatures, not just to the members of the Council of Europe, but it can be signed by other states as well, and since it’s opening for signature, it’s also been signed by Japan, Switzerland, Ukraine, Montenegro and Canada. So it’s, in its essence, a global treaty on AI, human rights, democracy and the rule of law, and it formulates fundamental principles and rules which safeguard human rights, democracy and the rule of law throughout the AI life cycle, while at the same time being conducive to progress and technological innovation. So, as we’ve heard and as I think we know, AI has the potential to enhance democratic values and improve the integrity of information, but at the same time, valid concerns have been raised. The integrity of democracy and its processes rests on two fundamental assumptions, that individuals possess both agency, so the capacity to form an opinion and act on it, as well as influence, so the capacity to affect decisions made on their behalf. AI has the potential to either and both strengthen as well as to undermine these capacities. So David mentioned AI-driven persuasion at scale, which is an excellent example of how these capacities can be very efficiently undermined. So it’s not very surprising that one of the core obligations under the Convention, the Council of Europe’s AI Convention, is for parties to adopt or uphold measures to protect individuals’ ability to freely form opinions. So these measures can include measures to protect against malicious foreign inference, as well as efforts to counter the spread of disinformation. And as we’ve heard, AI can serve both as a tool for spreading, efficiently, disinformation and thereby fragmenting the public sphere, as well as to combat disinformation. This has to be done with some thought put into it. So it’s essential to implement appropriate safeguards and to ensure that AI does not negatively impact democratic processes. So currently the Committee on AI at the Council of Europe is developing a risk and impact assessment methodology, which can be used by developers and other stakeholders to guide responsible AI development. It’s a multi-stakeholder process with the civil society, the technical society being involved and there’s still time to contribute to this process if you wish and it’s a great example of how we can go from a convention to developing a tool which hopefully will have practical value and can be used by practitioners and policymakers to assess risks with AI systems to democratic processes and to democratic dialogue. Another safeguard that we in Sweden believe is very important is AI literacy. So AI literacy, both understanding what AI is but also understanding how it can affect this information, is crucial in addressing the challenges posed by the rapid advancement of AI technologies. So the Swedish government has tasked the Swedish Agency for Media with creating educational materials to enhance the public’s understanding of AI, particularly in relation to disinformation and misinformation. So they will develop a web-based educational tool which will be released later this year. However, one of the things that we are thinking about from a policymaker’s perspective and the key challenge is to find the right balance between providing sufficient information without further eroding public trust in the information ecosystem. So the important question here is, to what extent is it beneficial for the society when all information is questioned? What does it do with democracy and what does it do with our agency when we can no longer trust the information that we see, that we read, that we hear? So finding that right balance and informing about the risks while not eroding the public’s trust is, I think, a key challenge. and something I’d love to talk more about. Thank you.

Irena Gríkova: Thank you very much, Maria. Indeed, the AI Treaty of the Council of Europe is really important. It does need to be ratified though, so I encourage everyone here who has any say or any way of doing advocacy for the signature ratification of this treaty. Do not hesitate to come back to us, to Maria, to our colleagues, to myself, to find out more about it. Our final speaker is Olha Petrov. Olha is an artificial intelligence lawyer at the Centre for Democracy and the Rule of Law in Ukraine. She’s an expert on artificial intelligence and played an active role in the discussion and amending the negotiations of the Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence of the Council of Europe. Olha, you, coming from Ukraine, clearly are at first hand observing the challenges that artificial intelligence poses for society amidst the war of aggression. And you also have some ideas about tools that can actually help curb that phenomenon. Can you tell us about it?

Olha Petriv: Yes, thank you. And I want to start that in Ukraine, disinformation, it’s not just a problem, it’s something that we face and solve every day. And we have some steps that we already did to fight with this. And Ukraine, our Ministry of Digital Transformation in Ukraine, we already have created AI strategy and also a roadmap on AI that has a bottom-up approach that help us right now to do our first step with companies and with our civil society to fight also against disinformation during the war. And what it It means that we don’t wait for the law to be passed and we have two parts, where first part consists of recommendation for society, for business, for developers and also other part is methodology of Huderia, self-regulation and other main steps that help us not to wait for the law. I want to share more information about self-regulation, like first step before this law, it’s like a process when companies come together to create their own code of conduct and to solve the problem when also companies, they don’t use AI in ethical way, and that is why six months ago our companies, it was like 14 companies, Ukrainian, Grammarly, SoftServe and other big companies that were created in Ukraine and work worldwide, they created code of conduct that consists of eight main principles that they implement in their business. Also after this they created Memorandum of Commitment, according to which they created self-regulation body and members of this self-regulation body and also people, not people, like businesses that signed code of conduct, they will report once a year about implementing these guidelines that are And as a result Ukrainian society and other countries that can see how Ukrainian business is working with ethical AI We can just check this and understand how it’s implemented So it was and it is right now our first step because we don’t want to wait when this law will be in Ukraine right now or later We know that if we will implement this ethical AI in our AI systems right now, for example, principles that are connected with transparency With risk-oriented approach and other principles that we have right now in code of conduct And other companies that already want to be part of this process As a result, we will show the world and show inside our country that we are innovative in using AI ethically And also after this and during this process to fight against disinformation What we are doing all the time because of a lot of campaigns that we have because of war And other important side of all of this what I want to discuss today Like tell today is part of children and AI and disinformation Because children are using AI a lot too And disinformation is that part that they can spread and they can be also victims of disinformation that are created by them We already have this situation in Ukraine, its campaign name of which is Matryoshka. And during this campaign, a face of Ukrainian refugee girl was used to spread information that she doesn’t like different schools in the U.S. and as a result to make Ukrainian refugees in other countries in the type that they have distrust. So it’s one type how disinformation is used against Ukrainian children also when they are part of this disinformational process but they aren’t ready for this and it was just using of their faces and creating deepfakes by Russia. Also right now disinformational bullying is spreading more and more in schools, not only in politics and what we can do with this, we are working a lot with using AI in educational process with children and also for example UNESCO has created a lot of programs connected with disinformational process in Ukraine where we spread to children how to make their critical thinking better because especially when you are living in a country when every day you face a lot of big amount of news that are faked, you have to make your critical thinking better. So also we now… are working on this, that we have not to ban AI from, like, for children, we have to give them knowledge how to help using AI better, and to know how AI works. And right now, like, strategies against AI, it’s, like, against AI disinformation, it’s the main, our main strategic response to AI disinformation, and also we have to make the children will understand how to resist to different fakes that we have. And when we are talking about this, for example, at my start-up, we are working on that we help children to develop the critical thinking through, not through lectures, or not through different moral lessons, but through AI companion, that it’s easy to understand for children, and as a result, it’s better for the education, because we know that if we will not teach children how to understand news and understand AI, somebody else will teach them how to think. And it’s not just a parental issue, it’s a generation’s lost potential. Thank you.

Irena Gríkova: Thank you very much, Olga. Well, that was plenty of information and insights. Now it’s time, we’ll have about 15 minutes for a discussion with you, the audience, both on-site and online. If you would like to ask a question or contribute with your thoughts, please use the two microphones on the sides of the room, introduce yourself, and go for it, and my colleague Julia will be checking. the Zoom site for any speakers online. Yes, please.

Mikko Salo: Thank you. My name is Mikko Salo. I’m representing Faktabarida, a digital information literacy service in Finland. And we’ve been in, let’s say, 12 years in the crazy world of information disorders. And with a small actor, we try to focus where it really matters. And I very much subscribe to the education field. OK, we might be spoiled, perhaps in Finland, but still being able to trust and investing in teachers for a long time. But that’s what you said on the line. And in Ukraine, you know what you’re talking about because you are in the face of it. But something that I’d like to specify that at what stage and how do you teach about the AI? Because, of course, in the big picture, and this is what we learned when we were lecturing in the US, people tend to take the AI as granted. And I mean, what is the right age? Because you have to first think yourself in order to use the AI as a supportive tool, like you describe. And that’s, I think, it’s a very culturally bound thing. Then a small note to Mr. Campbell, you have a very good presentation, but we are working a lot with the fact checkers as well. And just a little bit ringing in my eyes that if you use like a meta Zuckerberg to say about the left-leaning fact checking, because what happened was that Zuckerberg completely revised his opinion on fact checking because of the political tides in the US. I think it’s for everybody to judge what the fact checkers have proposed. It’s definitely not enough. But I think the fact checkers have written a very open letter about explaining the case. So that needs to be corrected for the files. Swedish colleagues as well, so we did in Finland. First, what we introduced is that as a small NGO, we kind of pushed the government to do the guidelines for the teachers, because outside that, this kind of guidelines, the teachers are lost. It’s such a big thing. And now when they have the guidelines, then we made a kind of guide on AI for teachers. It’s actually been translated within the OneEU project in English as well. Culture specific, but still that they need guidance on that one. I think that’s the shortest way and the lowest hanging fruit to multiply towards the next generations, because if you become AI native, so to say, without being literate on that one, that’s very scary. Thank you.

Irena Gríkova: Thank you for your contribution. Let’s take the other two questions and then revert to the panel.

Audience: Hi, my name is Frances. I’m from the YouthDIG, the European Youth IGF. And I just had a question mainly for David Caswell about basically people’s preferences with journalism, because at least my intuition is that there needs to be an original source when it comes to journalism. So when we say that the gathering of news and information can be equally or just about as good done by AI, is that necessarily true when there needs to be an original source? Maybe if you think about war journalism or people who go into conflicts or people who go to humanitarian crises, or even just like lots of us like to consume news about personal anecdotes or personal stories. So then can AI really replace that? And then the second thing is I think people also like to read the same content as other people because it unifies us in a way, which is why you have echo chambers. Yes, I read The Economist and you read The Daily Mail. And so we’re different in that respect. But why would that necessarily disappear? Like the whole screen for one or the media for one is not necessarily that attractive because it means that then… and Aya Solares. We’re all consumers of different news. We can’t relate to people because we’re all consuming different news. The last characteristic, I think it’s also possibly true, but please correct me if I’m wrong, is surely if online systems and AI is generating all of our news, that’s super-fast. That’s maybe too fast for us to keep up with. So you have a comparative advantage if you’re a news site that is the original source, one, and you only have a few articles, one, and you only have a few articles, one, and you only have a few articles, one, and you only have a few articles, one, and you only have a few articles, one, and you only have a few articles, one, and you only have a few articles. So I would just like to know how, yeah, if you disagree or agree with those characterizations. Thank you.

Irena Gríkova: Thank you. Yes, please.

Audience: Hello, my name is Jun Baek from Youth of Privacy. We are a youth-led privacy and cybersecurity education organization. One of the lessons that we learned from the last two years is that when you have a lot of attempts at education, it is a very hard battle to be won because of the scale of the problem. And I was wondering if there might be some other ways of incentivizing a lot of AI services providers to be more grounded on truth and reality, and what are some ways that we could try to incentivize them to do so? Thank you.

Irena Gríkova: Thank you so much. Actually, I had a very similar question for Ulha. How do you actually motivate AI companies to go for the self-regulation comply? I’ll abuse my role as moderator to also ask David a question, because you were saying that we need news that is systemic and not selective, and I don’t understand, actually, what you mean by that. So let’s address all of these questions now. Who wants to start?

Olha Petriv: Okay. I want to say that this question and answer is more complex, because when we are talking about When children are using KI, of course, in this moment, we want to give them a safe environment. And what can we do as people that are connected to policy process and that can work with ministry, for example, we should ask more and more companies that share services that children can use to do this in ethical way. And other side of this, of course, we have to work with parents and with teachers. That is why I thought that it’s not just a parental issue that we have this gap when AI already is here. It means that we should use even a result of work that UNESCO did and they wrote in 2023 that AI skills is most so important for children, beginning from the algorithm understanding and other important steps that children have to understand when they are at school too. So what about age? It’s also important that we, like people already use this in super young age for their children. And it’s important to give children understand that AI can be like a tool that helps them to find answers to their questions and to help them to ask more and more questions. Because even if we will say about this AI leap in Estonia, that it will be in their educational program and also If we will tell about Mriya in Ukraine, we also integrate AI in educational system when teachers use this. We understand that, for example, in AI-lib, we have lessons like parts that is responsible for critical thinking. And it’s the main part of this. And yes, it’s my answer.

Irena Gríkova: David?

David Caswell: And before I answer the questions, I’d just like to make a comment. I really think this idea of an AI chatbot to teach children AI literacy is an absolutely brilliant idea. And I’m going to have to noodle on that one. I think it’s really, really smart. So I’ll just go through these questions. And please correct me if I’ve kind of got anything wrong here. On the left coding of disinformation, misinformation concerns, yeah, the Mark Zuckerberg situation, him specifically, is one thing. But I think the reason he’s up there doing that, the reason he’s making these decisions, is because essentially half the electorate in the UK kind of feels broadly the same way. And I think the point I was trying to make there, didn’t have a lot of time to do it, is that I think it’s a tragedy that we have a partisan slant on this idea of an untruthful information environment. I think if there’s ever a thing we should all agree on, regardless of which side of the political spectrum we’re on, it should be a basis in fact and accuracy. So that was the point I was kind of trying to make with that one. I think on the fact checking specifically, there’s also a massive, massive scale issue where no matter how much you spend on fact checking, you just can’t keep up with the sort of volume of facts that need to be checked, basically. On the original sources thing, I think with AI, AI can be applied to only some kinds of journalism. And this is journalism that is essentially where the source material, the raw source material is. It’s digitally accessible. It has to be accessible to the AI. But I’d make a few comments there. One is that that’s already a significant and maybe even a majority chunk of journalism. If you kind of watch what actual journalists do in newsrooms these days, a lot of it is sitting at a computer, less and less out there in the field doing things. People always bring up the war journalism stuff and everything. That’s very important. AI is not going to do that in my lifetime. But that’s a very, very small part of journalism. And also, you know, the abilities of these systems to do other kinds of journalism, for example, interviews, AI is interviewing people, you know, these kind of things, you know, email exchanges, all of this kind of stuff. That’s a very real thing as well. It’s already starting. On the use of publications as part of identity, you know, this idea of a shared, you know, I read The Economist and I’m with people who read The Economist and somebody else reads The Telegraph and so on. I think that actually gets to one of the likely strategies that these kind of publications will take in the face of AI, which is to move up the value chain and focus more on identity. And that’s probably going to be quite successful. The problem with that, though, is it’ll be quite successful for The Economist and Telegraphs of the world because these are subscription-based, very narrowly focused identity-based publications. But if you take news publications and move them into sort of a high-value luxury good kind of category, you’re leaving out a lot of the population. So I think that’s a challenge there. The speed thing, I don’t know. I mean, I think, you know, there’s different ways to adapt to the news cycle or what even is a news cycle that’s always on. I think one of the things that AI can do is just basically create the experience that you want. So if you want a daily update, you know, whatever style or form of interaction or experience you want, and that’s one of the advantages there. The other question about… I don’t know if there’s another one for me there, but on your question about systematic versus selective, the opportunity there is, if you look at a domain of knowledge, say the auto industry in Bavaria, for example, some specific area of news. Right now, there’s a lot of journalists that cover that, but what they do is they don’t cover everything that’s happening because they can’t. There’s just not enough of them. They don’t have enough time. So they select, this is called newsworthiness decisions. They find stories, specific things in that industry, in that geography to report about. Whereas with AI, for some significant portions of that domain, that news domain, every single PDF can be read and analyzed. Every single social media post by every single executive can be analyzed. The automated systems can systematically cover all of it. Again, only the stuff that’s digitally accessible, but they can do it systematically. Whereas journalists have to pick and choose because they’re in a world of scarce resources.

Irena Gríkova: Yes.

Chine Labbé: Maybe, yeah, just to address the question about AI versus on-the-ground journalism, I think that’s an opportunity for on-the-ground journalism. I think having worked in newsroom most of my life before joining NewsGuard and having a hybrid role, we often just didn’t have time or money to go on the ground and report. On the ground doesn’t mean going to a war zone necessarily, but just going across the street and interviewing people. I think with AI, it’ll allow journalism to go back to its roots and do more on-the-ground journalism. It’s an opportunity. Then the one question I wanted to address is the question about how to incentivize AI providers to base their systems more on the truth. I think the first step here is to raise awareness because a lot of people don’t realize. I think once users realize the scale of the issue, so the more you have tests like the BBC. The more you have audits like ours that show repeatedly that chatbots authoritatively share false claims and can’t help you with the facts, people will ask the platforms to do better. And at the end of the day, it’s a business. So if the users ask for more truth, then they’ll have to put in the guardrails. The problem today is that AI chatbots are not meant to provide you accurate information. That’s not what they’re meant to do. But that’s how people are more and more using them for. So as people increase their use towards that end, we have to raise the awareness within the consumers so that they ask for more reliability. The problem that we’re seeing now in our audits is that the chatbots tend to do worse in month that they release new features. What does that mean? That means that the industry is focusing on efficiency, on new sexy features, but not on safety. And so when you have new features, usually safety takes the back seat when it comes to news. So I think it has to come from the users asking for it.

David Caswell: Sorry, if I could build on that one second. On hallucinations specifically, there are other kinds of errors in AI output other than hallucinations. But on hallucinations specifically, there’s a website. You can go to the AI leaderboard that measures the hallucination rate of different models. And although you have retrenchments in hallucination rates like the 03 model that was just released from OpenAI, you can see the march over time of these models going from hallucination rates around the 15% range to now I think the top models in the leaderboard are 0.7%. That’s an indication of progress. I think it’s a lot less spectacular than it looks. And there are other sources of error in AI output beyond hallucinations. Omission is a big one. But we are in a transition phase here with these tools, and they will get better.

Irena Gríkova: And I just wanted to add, I know two minutes, so I will give the speakers last word for their concluding, if you want to say something.

Maria Nordstrom: Yeah, I can, I can, these can be my concluding words, I guess, because I just fully agree that these are consumer products and we can empower the consumers. But at the same time, we are limited to hard law regulation and soft law measures. When it comes to hard law, yeah, we have the AI Act in the EU, for example, but it’s hard to, by hard law, by regulation, require the truth. I think that’s quite difficult to achieve through that particular measure. So when it comes to incentives, I think it’s very true that we can empower the consumers and probably help and lower the bar for consumers to understand and compare these products, because ultimately there are various AI systems out there that you can use and we can help consumers make a conscious choice about which systems they are using.

Irena Gríkova: Exactly.

Chine Labbé: I think the one thing I’d like to conclude with is that malign actors are betting on two things. They’re betting on one that will use AI chatbots more and more for information. Now, I think according to the latest digital news report, it’s 7% of people in the world that say that they use AI every week for the news, but it’s 15% if you take just the under 25, and it’s going to grow spectacularly, and they’re betting that we’re not going to put the guardrails. So I think we have to focus on that, realise that, yes, we’re going to use AI more and more for that, and put in the guardrails. Thank you. Less than one minute, so if you have

Irena Gríkova: three seconds, conclusion or…

David Caswell: Yeah, I’d just like to emphasise that it’s probably worth paying attention to the… The difficulties of the last 10 years of misinformation, disinformation response and not applying those or not sort of continuing those necessarily into the AI era. And I think particularly what that means is a more systems or strategic level focus. And the necessity for that is an ideal. It’s a view of what we want our information ecosystem to look like. And we have to have that conversation first, because then we know what we’re steering towards.

Irena Gríkova: Okay.

Olha Petriv: And I want to conclude that it’s important to remember the target audience of disinformation and propaganda sometimes and like all the time are not only people that are right now voters, but that people that will vote in the next years. And it’s important to remember when we are thinking about disinformation and campaigns that we have right now.

Irena Gríkova: Thank you very much. A couple of actionable highlights or food for thought, because we need to conclude on an action note. We need to preserve, first of all, for me, very important highlight. We need to preserve primary source journalism. And this is something we at the Council of Europe actually have started talking about to create a solid basis for AI based secondary journalism, because without it, it will turn into really entirely virtual world. We need AI and information literacy, including using chatbots to teach children AI literacy. It’s a good idea, but there are many other initiatives out there. Perhaps we need also certification for AI bots, because it’s true that you organizations like NewsGuard do monitor and alert, but then who knows, I mean, how many people actually are aware. So maybe we need some kind of a point system, like star system, like the users ranking, so that we know how trustable a particular bot is, or even maybe public service bots for trustworthy information. But there can be more ideas. AI is in its infancy and our understanding of it is even more in the beginning. So let’s hope we will together be able to turn AI from a weapon to a force for good. Thank you very much to the panelists, technicians, participants and everyone else. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you very much.

Agreement points

AI has fundamentally transformed information creation and distribution at unprecedented scale

Speakers

– David Caswell
– Chine Labbé

Arguments

AI has transformed information creation from artisanal to automated processes, fundamentally changing the information ecosystem

Malign actors increasingly use AI to generate sophisticated deepfakes, with Russian-Ukraine conflict showing 16-fold increase in deepfake quality and quantity

AI enables creation of entire networks of fake local news websites that appear credible but spread disinformation at unprecedented scale

Summary

Both speakers agree that AI represents a fundamental shift in how information is created and distributed, moving from manual/artisanal processes to automated systems that can operate at massive scale, though they focus on different aspects – Caswell on the general transformation and Labbé on malicious applications

Topics

Human rights | Sociocultural | Cybersecurity

Consumer awareness and market pressure can drive improvements in AI system reliability

Speakers

– Chine Labbé
– Maria Nordstrom

Arguments

Consumer awareness and demand for truthful AI systems can drive industry improvements in accuracy and safety features

Hard law regulation has limitations in requiring ‘truth’ from AI systems, making consumer empowerment and choice crucial

Summary

Both speakers recognize that while regulation has limitations, empowering consumers with knowledge and choice can create market incentives for AI companies to improve accuracy and reliability of their systems

Topics

Economic | Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Education and literacy are crucial for building resilience against AI-driven disinformation

Speakers

– Maria Nordstrom
– Olha Petriv
– Mikko Salo

Arguments

Finding balance between AI literacy education and maintaining public trust in information systems is a key policy challenge

AI literacy education must start early, focusing on critical thinking and algorithm understanding rather than banning AI use by children

Teachers need specific guidelines and support materials to effectively integrate AI literacy into education systems

Summary

All three speakers emphasize that education is fundamental to addressing AI disinformation challenges, though they highlight different aspects – the policy balance (Nordstrom), early childhood focus (Petriv), and teacher support needs (Salo)

Topics

Human rights | Sociocultural | Development

AI can be part of the solution when properly implemented with human oversight

Speakers

– David Caswell
– Chine Labbé

Arguments

AI can make civic information more accessible across different literacy levels, languages, and format preferences

AI can enable systematic rather than selective journalism coverage, processing vast amounts of digitally accessible information

AI tools can assist in monitoring disinformation and deploying fact-checks at scale when humans remain in the loop

AI may allow traditional journalism to return to on-the-ground reporting by automating routine information processing tasks

Summary

Both speakers acknowledge that despite the risks, AI offers significant opportunities to improve information systems – Caswell focuses on accessibility and systematic coverage, while Labbé emphasizes monitoring capabilities and freeing journalists for original reporting

Topics

Human rights | Sociocultural

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers recognize that current approaches to combating disinformation are inadequate and that AI exacerbates these problems by creating systemic issues rather than just individual false content pieces

Speakers

– David Caswell
– Chine Labbé

Arguments

Previous anti-disinformation efforts have been largely ineffective due to scale issues, perceived bias, and focus on individual artifacts rather than systems

AI creates vicious cycles where AI-generated false content gets validated by AI chatbots, creating self-reinforcing disinformation loops

Topics

Human rights | Sociocultural | Cybersecurity

Both speakers emphasize the critical importance of educational infrastructure and support systems for effectively teaching AI literacy, particularly focusing on practical implementation challenges

Speakers

– Olha Petriv
– Mikko Salo

Arguments

Educational initiatives should help children understand AI as a tool while developing skills to resist disinformation

Teachers need specific guidelines and support materials to effectively integrate AI literacy into education systems

Topics

Sociocultural | Development

Both speakers recognize the limitations of regulatory approaches alone and emphasize the importance of market-driven solutions through informed consumer choice and pressure

Speakers

– Chine Labbé
– Maria Nordstrom

Arguments

AI companies currently prioritize new features over safety, but user pressure could shift this balance toward reliability

Hard law regulation has limitations in requiring ‘truth’ from AI systems, making consumer empowerment and choice crucial

Topics

Economic | Legal and regulatory

Unexpected consensus

Self-regulation as viable interim solution

Speakers

– Olha Petriv
– Maria Nordstrom

Arguments

Self-regulation can serve as interim solution, with Ukrainian companies creating ethical AI codes of conduct while awaiting formal legislation

The Council of Europe’s AI Framework Convention provides first legally binding global treaty addressing AI’s impact on human rights, democracy and rule of law

Explanation

Despite representing different approaches (bottom-up self-regulation vs. top-down international treaty), both speakers see value in interim measures and voluntary compliance while formal legal frameworks develop. This suggests pragmatic consensus on multi-layered governance approaches

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Economic

AI chatbots as educational tools for AI literacy

Speakers

– David Caswell
– Olha Petriv
– Audience

Arguments

AI can make civic information more accessible across different literacy levels, languages, and format preferences

Educational initiatives should help children understand AI as a tool while developing skills to resist disinformation

Using AI chatbots to teach children about AI literacy represents an innovative educational approach

Explanation

There was unexpected enthusiasm across speakers for using AI itself as an educational tool to teach AI literacy. This meta-approach of using the technology to understand the technology represents innovative thinking that emerged during the discussion

Topics

Sociocultural | Development | Human rights

Overall assessment

Summary

The speakers demonstrated strong consensus on several key areas: the transformative scale of AI’s impact on information systems, the limitations of purely regulatory approaches, the critical importance of education and literacy, and the potential for AI to be part of the solution when properly implemented. There was also agreement on the need for multi-stakeholder approaches combining regulation, market incentives, and educational initiatives.

Consensus level

High level of consensus with complementary rather than conflicting perspectives. The speakers approached the topic from different angles (technical, policy, industry, civil society) but arrived at remarkably similar conclusions about both challenges and solutions. This suggests a mature understanding of the complexity of AI disinformation issues and the need for comprehensive, multi-faceted responses. The consensus has positive implications for developing coordinated international responses to AI disinformation challenges.

Different viewpoints

Effectiveness and bias of fact-checking approaches

Speakers

– David Caswell
– Mikko Salo

Arguments

Previous anti-disinformation efforts have been largely ineffective due to scale issues, perceived bias, and focus on individual artifacts rather than systems

Teachers need specific guidelines and support materials to effectively integrate AI literacy into education systems

Summary

Caswell argues that fact-checking has been ineffective and suffers from left-coding bias, citing Zuckerberg’s justification for ending fact-checking at META. Salo pushes back, suggesting that Zuckerberg’s position was politically motivated rather than evidence-based, and defends the work of fact-checkers who have written open letters explaining their case.

Topics

Human rights | Sociocultural | Legal and regulatory

Role of AI in replacing original source journalism

Speakers

– David Caswell
– Audience

Arguments

AI can enable systematic rather than selective journalism coverage, processing vast amounts of digitally accessible information

Using AI chatbots to teach children about AI literacy represents an innovative educational approach

Summary

An audience member questioned whether AI can truly replace journalism that requires original sources, particularly war journalism and personal stories that require human presence. Caswell acknowledged AI limitations but argued that much current journalism involves computer-based work that AI can handle, while the audience member emphasized the irreplaceable value of human-sourced reporting.

Topics

Human rights | Sociocultural

Unexpected differences

Trust versus skepticism balance in information literacy

Speakers

– Maria Nordstrom
– Irena Gríkova

Arguments

Finding balance between AI literacy education and maintaining public trust in information systems is a key policy challenge

Three-pillar approach needed: fact-checking integration, human rights-by-design platform principles, and user empowerment strategies

Explanation

While both speakers work for institutions focused on protecting democratic values, they reveal a subtle but significant tension. Nordstrom worries that too much skepticism about information could undermine democracy itself, while Gríkova suggests we may have entered an ‘era of mistrust’ that requires new approaches like public service AI chatbots. This disagreement is unexpected because it reveals philosophical differences about whether trust or skepticism should be the default stance in information literacy.

Topics

Human rights | Sociocultural

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion revealed relatively low levels of fundamental disagreement among speakers, with most conflicts centered on implementation approaches rather than core goals. The main areas of disagreement involved the effectiveness of current fact-checking approaches, the extent to which AI can replace human journalism, and the balance between promoting healthy skepticism versus maintaining institutional trust.

Disagreement level

The disagreement level was moderate and constructive, with speakers generally building on each other’s points rather than opposing them. The most significant implication is that while there’s broad consensus on the problems AI poses for information integrity, there’s less agreement on solutions – particularly regarding the balance between technological fixes, regulatory approaches, and educational interventions. This suggests that policy development in this area will require careful coordination among different approaches rather than choosing a single strategy.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers recognize that current approaches to combating disinformation are inadequate and that AI exacerbates these problems by creating systemic issues rather than just individual false content pieces

Speakers

– David Caswell
– Chine Labbé

Arguments

Previous anti-disinformation efforts have been largely ineffective due to scale issues, perceived bias, and focus on individual artifacts rather than systems

AI creates vicious cycles where AI-generated false content gets validated by AI chatbots, creating self-reinforcing disinformation loops

Topics

Human rights | Sociocultural | Cybersecurity

Both speakers emphasize the critical importance of educational infrastructure and support systems for effectively teaching AI literacy, particularly focusing on practical implementation challenges

Speakers

– Olha Petriv
– Mikko Salo

Arguments

Educational initiatives should help children understand AI as a tool while developing skills to resist disinformation

Teachers need specific guidelines and support materials to effectively integrate AI literacy into education systems

Topics

Sociocultural | Development

Both speakers recognize the limitations of regulatory approaches alone and emphasize the importance of market-driven solutions through informed consumer choice and pressure

Speakers

– Chine Labbé
– Maria Nordstrom

Arguments

AI companies currently prioritize new features over safety, but user pressure could shift this balance toward reliability

Hard law regulation has limitations in requiring ‘truth’ from AI systems, making consumer empowerment and choice crucial

Topics

Economic | Legal and regulatory

Key takeaways

AI has fundamentally transformed information creation from artisanal to automated processes, creating both unprecedented risks and opportunities for democratic dialogue

Current anti-disinformation efforts have been largely ineffective due to scale limitations, with AI now enabling malign actors to create sophisticated disinformation campaigns at unprecedented scale and low cost

AI chatbots authoritatively repeat false claims 26% of the time, creating vicious cycles where AI-generated disinformation gets validated by AI systems themselves

Children are particularly vulnerable to AI-generated disinformation and require early AI literacy education focused on critical thinking rather than AI prohibition

The Council of Europe’s AI Framework Convention provides the first legally binding global treaty addressing AI’s impact on human rights, democracy and rule of law

Consumer awareness and demand for truthful AI systems can drive industry improvements, as AI companies currently prioritize new features over safety and accuracy

AI offers opportunities for systematic rather than selective journalism coverage and can make civic information more accessible across different populations

Self-regulation by AI companies can serve as an interim solution while formal legislation is being developed

The fundamental challenge is preserving democratic institutions built on trust while navigating an era of widespread information mistrust

Resolutions and action items

Develop AI literacy educational materials and programs, including innovative approaches like using AI chatbots to teach children about AI

Create certification and labeling systems for credible information sources and AI systems to help users identify trustworthy content

Preserve and strengthen primary source journalism as the foundation for AI-based secondary journalism

Implement the Council of Europe’s three-pillar approach: fact-checking integration, human rights-by-design platform principles, and user empowerment strategies

Develop risk and impact assessment methodology for AI systems affecting democratic processes through the Council of Europe’s multi-stakeholder process

Raise consumer awareness about AI misinformation issues to drive market demand for more reliable AI systems

Support ratification and implementation of the Council of Europe’s AI Framework Convention

Invest in strengthening public service media and regulatory authorities’ capabilities to navigate the digital environment

Unresolved issues

How to find the right balance between AI literacy education and maintaining public trust in information systems without further eroding confidence

What is the optimal age and methodology for teaching children about AI and disinformation resistance

How to effectively regulate AI systems to require truthfulness when hard law has limitations in mandating ‘truth’

How to address the demand side of disinformation – making users seek and consume quality information even when available

How to scale fact-checking and content moderation to match the volume of AI-generated content

Whether AI can truly replace primary source journalism, particularly for on-ground reporting and original source gathering

How to prevent the fragmentation of shared narratives while enabling personalized AI-mediated information experiences

How to demonetize the disinformation economy and cut off financial incentives for spreading false information

Suggested compromises

Use AI as a tool to enhance rather than replace human journalism, allowing traditional media to focus on on-ground reporting while AI handles routine information processing

Implement hybrid approaches where humans remain in the loop for AI-assisted fact-checking and content moderation

Develop both hard law regulation (like the EU AI Act) and soft law measures (like industry self-regulation) to address different aspects of the AI disinformation challenge

Focus on empowering consumers to make informed choices about AI systems rather than attempting to regulate truth directly

Combine systematic AI-enabled information coverage with preservation of identity-based publications that serve community-building functions

Pursue both supply-side solutions (reducing harmful content production) and demand-side solutions (improving user resilience and critical thinking)

We basically changed our information ecosystem from a one-to-many, or more accurately, a few-to-many shape, to a many-to-many shape… And this was the technical change that caused this cascade of activity over the last 15 years, including around disinformation and misinformation.

Speaker

David Caswell

Reason

This comment provides a fundamental framework for understanding the root cause of our current information crisis. Rather than focusing on symptoms, Caswell identifies the structural transformation that enabled mass disinformation – the democratization of mass communication itself.

Impact

This framing shifted the discussion from treating AI as the primary problem to understanding it as the latest evolution in a longer transformation. It established a historical context that influenced how other panelists discussed solutions, moving beyond reactive measures to systemic thinking.

I think there’s another deep risk that really is underappreciated here, which is that as we start to use these models as sort of core intelligence for our societies, that there are biases in these models… Elon Musk… has just recently announced that they’re going to use Grok to basically rebuild the archive on which they train the next version of Grok. So they’re going to write a new history, basically, of humanity, and then use that to train Grok.

Speaker

David Caswell

Reason

This insight reveals a terrifying feedback loop where AI systems don’t just reflect existing biases but actively reshape the information foundation of society. The Grok example illustrates how powerful actors can literally ‘rewrite history’ at the training data level.

Impact

This comment introduced a new dimension of concern that went beyond traditional content moderation discussions. It elevated the conversation to existential questions about truth and reality, influencing later discussions about the need for systematic approaches and public oversight.

So you have information created by AI, generated, then repeated through those websites and validated by the AI chatbots, the really vicious circle of disinformation.

Speaker

Chine Labbé

Reason

This identifies a critical self-reinforcing mechanism where AI-generated false information becomes ‘validated’ by other AI systems, creating an ecosystem of synthetic credibility that’s increasingly difficult to detect or counter.

Impact

This observation shifted the discussion from viewing AI as a tool that could be controlled to understanding it as creating autonomous disinformation ecosystems. It reinforced the urgency around developing systematic solutions rather than piecemeal approaches.

The important question here is, to what extent is it beneficial for the society when all information is questioned? What does it do with democracy and what does it do with our agency when we can no longer trust the information that we see, that we read, that we hear?

Speaker

Maria Nordstrom

Reason

This comment captures a fundamental paradox: efforts to combat disinformation through skepticism and education may inadvertently erode the shared trust that democracy requires. It highlights the delicate balance between critical thinking and social cohesion.

Impact

This shifted the conversation from purely technical solutions to philosophical questions about the foundations of democratic society. It influenced the moderator’s later observation about entering an ‘era of mistrust’ and shaped discussions about preserving trusted institutions.

And it’s not just a parental issue, it’s a generation’s lost potential… if we will not teach children how to understand news and understand AI, somebody else will teach them how to think.

Speaker

Olha Petriv

Reason

This reframes AI literacy education as an urgent societal imperative rather than an individual responsibility. The phrase ‘somebody else will teach them how to think’ powerfully captures the stakes of inaction in a world where malicious actors are actively exploiting AI.

Impact

This comment elevated the discussion of education from a nice-to-have to an existential necessity. It influenced other speakers to focus on practical implementation of AI literacy programs and sparked innovative ideas like using AI chatbots to teach AI literacy.

I think there’s a new deep need… we’ve depended for 400 years on these mechanisms, like the scientific method or like journalism… they’re truth-seeking and they’re also self-correcting… I think they also need to be deterministic rather than probabilistic.

Speaker

David Caswell

Reason

This insight identifies a fundamental incompatibility between how democratic institutions have historically operated (deterministic, verifiable, persistent) and how AI systems work (probabilistic, opaque, ephemeral). It suggests our entire epistemological framework may need updating.

Impact

This comment introduced a deeper philosophical dimension to the technical discussion, influencing conversations about the need for new institutional frameworks and the importance of preserving traditional journalistic methods alongside AI innovation.

Overall assessment

These key comments transformed what could have been a typical ‘AI is dangerous/helpful’ discussion into a sophisticated analysis of systemic challenges to democratic epistemology. Caswell’s historical framing established that we’re dealing with the latest phase of a longer transformation, while Labbé’s practical examples grounded abstract concerns in measurable realities. Nordstrom’s philosophical questioning and Petriv’s urgency about education elevated the stakes from technical problems to civilizational challenges. Together, these insights shifted the conversation from reactive problem-solving to proactive system design, emphasizing the need for new institutional frameworks, educational approaches, and governance mechanisms that can preserve democratic dialogue in an AI-mediated information ecosystem. The discussion evolved from cataloging problems to envisioning solutions that address root causes rather than symptoms.

How do you fact check your way out of a completely new alternative reality created by AI?

Speaker

Irena Gríkova

Explanation

This addresses the fundamental challenge of verifying information when AI can create entire plausible but false narratives at scale, making traditional fact-checking approaches insufficient

What is the right age to teach children about AI, and how should this education be structured?

Speaker

Mikko Salo

Explanation

This is crucial for developing AI literacy programs, as children need to understand critical thinking before using AI as a supportive tool, and the approach may be culturally dependent

To what extent is it beneficial for society when all information is questioned? What does it do with democracy and our agency when we can no longer trust the information we see?

Speaker

Maria Nordstrom

Explanation

This addresses the balance between healthy skepticism and the erosion of trust that could undermine democratic institutions and individual agency

How can we incentivize AI service providers to be more grounded on truth and reality?

Speaker

Jun Baek

Explanation

This explores market-based and regulatory approaches to encourage AI companies to prioritize accuracy over other features like efficiency or novelty

How do you motivate AI companies to comply with self-regulation?

Speaker

Irena Gríkova

Explanation

This examines the mechanisms needed to ensure voluntary compliance with ethical AI standards in the absence of binding regulations

What does ‘systematic versus selective’ news coverage mean in the context of AI journalism?

Speaker

Irena Gríkova

Explanation

This seeks clarification on how AI could transform journalism from resource-constrained selective reporting to comprehensive systematic coverage of information domains

Can AI really replace original source journalism, especially in areas requiring human presence like war journalism or personal stories?

Speaker

Frances (YouthDIG)

Explanation

This questions the limits of AI in journalism and the continued need for human reporters in certain contexts that require physical presence and human connection

How can we develop certification or ranking systems for AI chatbots to help users identify trustworthy sources?

Speaker

Irena Gríkova

Explanation

This explores the need for user-friendly systems to evaluate and compare the reliability of different AI information sources

Should we develop public service AI chatbots trained only on reliable data?

Speaker

Irena Gríkova

Explanation

This considers whether governments should provide trustworthy AI information services as a public good, similar to public service media

How can we preserve and strengthen primary source journalism as the foundation for AI-based secondary journalism?

Speaker

Irena Gríkova

Explanation

This addresses the need to maintain human-generated original reporting to prevent the information ecosystem from becoming entirely virtual and self-referential

Summary

This discussion at the Internet Governance Forum focused on digital autonomy in the context of cloud computing concentration among major global providers. The panel examined concerns about strategic dependencies on a handful of predominantly US-based cloud services like AWS, Microsoft Azure, and Google Cloud, and their implications for national security, data protection, and digital resilience.

Anke Sikkema from the Netherlands Ministry of Economic Affairs outlined her country’s Digital Open Strategic Autonomy (DOSA) agenda, which aims to remain globally open while addressing strategic dependencies in the digital sector. She described recent debates in the Netherlands, including concerns when their domain registry provider wanted to move to Amazon Web Services, leading to parliamentary initiatives and revised government cloud policies. The Dutch approach emphasizes being “open where possible and protective when necessary.”

Jeff Bullwinkel from Microsoft acknowledged the legitimacy of sovereignty concerns while emphasizing that trust is fundamental to technology adoption. He outlined Microsoft’s European digital commitments, including doubling infrastructure capacity in Europe by 2027, implementing an EU data boundary, and committing to resist government orders to seize or suspend cloud services. He stressed the importance of focusing on innovation opportunities at the model and application layers, not just infrastructure.

Agustina Brizio provided a Global South perspective, highlighting how Latin American countries face particular challenges with hyperscaler dependency and limited regulatory capacity. She advocated for multi-cloud architectures, investment in local cloud capabilities, and stronger public procurement policies that include data localization and transparency requirements. She emphasized the need for more democratic governance mechanisms for cloud infrastructure, viewing it as a public good requiring social oversight.

The discussion concluded that addressing cloud concentration requires balanced approaches combining protection, promotion, and partnership among governments, industry, and civil society stakeholders.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Cloud Market Concentration and Digital Autonomy Concerns**: The discussion centered on how the dominance of a few major cloud providers (primarily US-based like AWS, Microsoft Azure, Google Cloud) creates strategic dependencies that raise concerns about national security, data protection, and digital sovereignty for countries worldwide.

– **Regional Approaches to Cloud Sovereignty**: Different regions are taking varied approaches – Europe is developing initiatives like GAIA-X and sovereign cloud policies, while Latin America faces greater challenges due to power imbalances and regulatory gaps when dealing with hyperscale cloud providers.

– **Trust, Transparency and Accountability in Cloud Services**: The conversation emphasized that trust is fundamental to cloud adoption, with discussions about how cloud providers can maintain trust through transparency, accountability measures, and compliance with local laws and regulations.

– **Multi-stakeholder Governance and Shared Responsibility**: Speakers highlighted the need for collaborative approaches involving governments, private sector, civil society, and academia to address cloud governance challenges, rather than relying solely on government regulation or corporate self-regulation.

– **Balancing Innovation Benefits with Sovereignty Concerns**: The discussion explored how to maintain the significant benefits of cloud computing (efficiency, scalability, innovation) while addressing legitimate concerns about data control, security, and national digital autonomy.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to explore the complex challenges of digital autonomy in an era dominated by concentrated cloud computing markets. The goal was to examine how different stakeholders can work together to manage strategic, regulatory, and operational risks while preserving the benefits of cloud services and fostering more diverse, secure, and locally accountable cloud ecosystems.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a balanced and constructive tone throughout. It began with acknowledgment of legitimate concerns about cloud concentration, evolved into a nuanced exploration of different regional perspectives and approaches, and concluded with a collaborative spirit emphasizing shared responsibility. The speakers were respectful of different viewpoints, with government and industry representatives acknowledging each other’s concerns while civil society voices provided critical but constructive perspectives from the Global South. The tone remained professional and solution-oriented rather than adversarial.

Speakers

– **Jenna Fung**: Program Director of NetMission.Asia, a youth-focused network in Asia Pacific dedicated to engaging and empowering young people in internet governance. Served as on-site moderator for the session.

– **Anke Sikkema**: Deputy Director, Digital Economy, Netherlands Ministry of Economic Affairs. Studied international relations at the University of Groningen in the Netherlands and started her career in Brussels as European Policy Advisor at VNO-NCW.

– **Jeff Bullwinkel**: Vice President and Deputy General Counsel, Corporate, External and Legal Affairs of Microsoft. Focuses on the company’s legal and corporate affairs across Europe, the Middle East and Africa.

– **Agustina Brizio**: Lawyer with a master’s degree in public policy, currently pursuing an MPA in digital technologies and policy at University College London. Innovations and digital technologies manager at Asuntos de Sol, where she leads efforts to strengthen democracy through inclusive tech policies in global south. Focuses on intersections of technologies, equity, and governance with particular interests in AI, cybersecurity, and digital rights.

– **Corinne Katt**: Head of Team Digital at Human Rights NGO Article 19, and a recovering postdoc who wrote work on the political economy of cloud.

Additional speakers:

None identified beyond the speakers names list.

# Digital Autonomy in the Cloud: Navigating Sovereignty and Innovation in an Era of Market Concentration

## Executive Summary

This discussion at the Internet Governance Forum’s Day Zero Event 270 examined the complex challenges surrounding digital autonomy in the context of concentrated cloud computing markets. The panel brought together diverse perspectives from government policy makers, industry representatives, civil society advocates, and Global South voices to explore how the dominance of a handful of predominantly US-based cloud providers affects national sovereignty, democratic governance, and innovation opportunities worldwide.

The conversation explored practical approaches that balance multiple competing values: sovereignty versus openness, security versus innovation, and local control versus global efficiency. All participants acknowledged the legitimacy of concerns about strategic dependencies on major cloud providers like AWS, Microsoft Azure, and Google Cloud, whilst recognising the substantial benefits these services provide for economic efficiency, innovation, and cybersecurity.

## Key Participants and Perspectives

The discussion was moderated by **Jenna Fung**, Program Director of NetMission.Asia, who noted this was her “first time moderating an open forum in this setting.” She opened by explaining key concepts including data residency (where data is physically stored), data sovereignty (legal control over data), and digital autonomy (ability to make independent decisions about digital infrastructure).

**Anke Sikkema**, Deputy of Directors of Digital Economy at the Netherlands Ministry of Economic Affairs, presented the European governmental perspective through her country’s Digital Open Strategic Autonomy (DOSA) agenda. Her approach emphasised being “open to the outside world where possible and protective when necessary.”

**Jeff Bullwinkel**, Vice President and Deputy General Counsel at Microsoft, provided the industry perspective whilst acknowledging the legitimacy of sovereignty concerns. He emphasised trust as fundamental to technology adoption, citing “a famous Dutch statesman in the 18th century” who said that “trust arrives on foot and leaves on horseback.”

**Agustina Brizio**, representing Global South perspectives as an innovations and digital technologies manager at Asuntos de Sol, highlighted the particular challenges faced by Latin American countries in dealing with hyperscale cloud providers, emphasising power imbalances and the need for more democratic governance mechanisms.

**Corinne Katt** from Article 19 contributed perspectives on the intersection of cloud computing with human rights and democratic oversight, particularly regarding concerns about government access to data.

## The Netherlands’ Digital Open Strategic Autonomy Approach

Sikkema outlined the Netherlands’ comprehensive approach to addressing cloud dependencies through their DOSA agenda, which emerged from growing concerns about strategic dependencies in the digital sector. A key catalyst was when SIDN, the .nl domain provider, wanted to migrate to Amazon Web Services, sparking national parliamentary debate about digital sovereignty.

This led to revised government cloud policies and the “Clouds on the Horizon” bill, drafted by Dutch parliament members with multi-stakeholder input. The Dutch approach centres on three key governmental roles: protecting through legislation, promoting innovation, and fostering partnerships.

Sikkema highlighted European Union initiatives including the Data Act and Digital Markets Act as regulatory tools that help mitigate risks whilst promoting investment. She also discussed collaborative European projects like Gaia-X and Eurostack, which aim to build collaborative digital infrastructure that provides alternatives to complete dependency on global hyperscalers whilst maintaining interoperability.

## Industry Perspective: Trust, Security, and Innovation

Bullwinkel acknowledged the legitimacy of sovereignty concerns whilst emphasising that trust forms the foundation of all technology adoption decisions. He announced Microsoft’s new sovereign cloud approach, revealed “just last week” in Amsterdam by CEO Satya Nadella, including plans to increase European capacity by 40% and double capacity between 2023-2027, implement an EU data boundary, and commit to resisting government orders to seize or suspend cloud services.

He outlined Microsoft’s security capabilities, noting that the company processes “77 trillion different signals” daily for cybersecurity and can invest in security at levels that exceed individual government capabilities. He used the example of Ukraine, which suspended its law requiring government data to be stored within borders during the conflict, achieving better data sovereignty by dispersing digital assets across Europe when Russian missiles targeted local data centres.

Bullwinkel also highlighted successful European companies like Mistral AI and Hugging Face as examples of innovation happening at the model and application layers using hyperscale infrastructure. He mentioned Microsoft’s partnerships with European companies including Leonardo in Italy, Proximus in Belgium, and Telefonica in Spain.

## Global South Challenges and Democratic Governance

Brizio provided crucial perspectives from Latin American countries, highlighting how Global South nations face particular challenges with hyperscaler dependency due to limited regulatory capacity and significant power imbalances. She cited Argentina’s experience with Arsat, a telecoms provider with data center capabilities, as an example of regional approaches to building local capacity.

Her arguments focused on the democratic governance implications of cloud concentration, noting that vendor lock-in prevents governments from making autonomous decisions and undermines democratic oversight. She advocated for multi-cloud architectures as a strategy to prevent vendor lock-in and maintain governmental decision-making autonomy.

Brizio called for stronger public procurement policies that include data localisation and transparency requirements, viewing these as powerful tools for governments to influence cloud provider behaviour. She emphasised the need for investment in national and regional cloud capabilities to support local innovation ecosystems.

Her most significant contribution was reframing cloud infrastructure as a public good requiring social oversight, calling for more democratic governance mechanisms that move beyond technical expert discussions to include broader societal stakeholders.

## Trust and Transparency Challenges

A recurring theme throughout the discussion was the fundamental challenge of building and maintaining trust in cloud services. Katt raised specific concerns about the US Cloud Act and its implications for European data protection, questioning whether company commitments to resist government data requests can overcome fundamental legal framework issues.

The discussion revealed that trust-building requires ongoing attention and cannot be easily resolved through technical measures alone. Different speakers proposed different approaches: corporate commitments and technical solutions versus stronger regulatory frameworks and democratic oversight mechanisms.

## Innovation and Economic Opportunities

Despite sovereignty concerns, all speakers recognised the significant innovation and economic opportunities created by cloud computing, particularly in the era of artificial intelligence. Bullwinkel emphasised that innovation opportunities exist across infrastructure, model, and application layers, arguing that European companies are successfully building innovative services on hyperscale infrastructure.

Other speakers argued that some level of infrastructure independence is necessary to support local innovation ecosystems and maintain decision-making autonomy. This tension between leveraging global capabilities and building local capacities highlighted the complexity of balancing innovation with sovereignty concerns.

## Regional Approaches and Collaboration

The discussion revealed different regional approaches to addressing cloud sovereignty challenges. European initiatives like Gaia-X and Eurostack represent collaborative approaches to building alternative infrastructure whilst maintaining interoperability with global services.

The Global South faces different challenges, with limited resources for building independent infrastructure but greater vulnerability to power imbalances with hyperscale providers. Brizio’s emphasis on hybrid public-private models and regional cooperation suggested potential pathways for developing countries to achieve some autonomy whilst leveraging global capabilities.

Bullwinkel mentioned his recent visits to African countries including Kenya, Egypt, Nigeria, Tanzania, and Rwanda, noting the diverse approaches being taken across different regions.

## Practical Solutions and Recommendations

Several practical solutions emerged from the discussion. Multi-cloud architectures were widely supported as a strategy to prevent vendor lock-in and maintain decision-making flexibility. Public procurement policies were identified as powerful tools for incorporating sovereignty requirements into government cloud adoption.

Investment in national and regional cloud capacities was seen as important for supporting local innovation ecosystems, though speakers acknowledged the challenges of building sustainable technical capacity and stable policy frameworks, particularly in developing countries.

The discussion also highlighted the importance of open and interoperable standards as alternatives to complete technological independence, allowing organisations to maintain flexibility whilst benefiting from global innovation.

## Multi-Stakeholder Governance

The conversation demonstrated the importance of multi-stakeholder approaches to cloud governance. All speakers agreed on the need for collaboration between governments, industry, and civil society, though they differed on implementation approaches.

The discussion highlighted that effective multi-stakeholder governance requires creating structures that provide meaningful participation and decision-making power to all relevant parties, including civil society and affected communities, rather than simply gathering stakeholders around a table.

## Conclusion

The discussion concluded with recognition that addressing cloud concentration requires balanced approaches combining protection, promotion, and partnership amongst governments, industry, and civil society stakeholders. The conversation moved beyond binary thinking about dependence versus independence to explore nuanced frameworks for managing trade-offs contextually.

As Fung noted in closing, digital autonomy can be “a slippery slope sometimes,” requiring careful navigation of competing interests and values. The speakers agreed that the conversation about digital autonomy should continue in national and regional contexts, with each stakeholder group taking specific steps to achieve meaningful digital autonomy whilst preserving the benefits of cloud computing for innovation, efficiency, and security.

The conversation ultimately reframed cloud governance from a purely technical or economic issue to a fundamental question about how societies should govern critical digital infrastructure in an interconnected world, emphasising the need for democratic participation and oversight in decisions that affect everyone’s digital future.

Jenna Fung: Testing. Can you guys hear me? Awesome, everyone. Hello. Welcome to Day Zero Event 270, Everything in the Cloud, How to Remain Digital Autonomous. I’m your on-site moderator today. My name is Jenna Fung, Program Directors of NetMission.Asia, a youth-focused network in Asia Pacific dedicated to engaging and empowering young people in internet governance. It is my first time moderating an open forum in this setting with the headphones on, and it’s kind of weird to hear your own voice when you moderate too. So please bear with me if I make any mistake, but welcome. I’m glad you guys decided to join today’s sessions, what I’m sure will be a dynamic and important conversation because this is a very interesting topic that interested me these days. And I believe it’s the same to all of you because you decided to attend this meeting and be with us today out of all the session. As we know, cloud computing is now the backbone of today’s digital economy. We encounter it without even noticing it, from backing up your photos from our phones, using smart home devices, or video doorbell, or even use tools like Google Docs or Zoom calls to prepare for your very IGF workshop coordination too. So we encounter cloud services these days even without realizing it, but as more and more of our infrastructure services and data move to the cloud, we are also starting to ask tougher questions, especially… about who controls these systems and what that means for national security, data protections, or even long-term digital resiliency. So right now, much of the world relies heavily on a few handful of major cloud providers, like mostly also US-based as well, like AWS, Microsoft, Azure, and Google Cloud. Of course, a lot of amazing work has been done. But recently also Europe and some other regions starting to have their different concerns about their strategic dependency on cloud usage. And in Asia, we are seeing more mixed pictures with some countries also turning to regional providers like Alibaba or Tencent, which they are mostly Chinese company. But only a few countries managed to build a robust, strong domestic cloud ecosystem to encounter the emerging and ever-changing environment that we are in today. So now to set stage for today’s discussions, I don’t know if you guys get a chance to read the titles again and again, because to me, it is very complicated. And it’s a concept that we have to unpack before we can construct a conversation that’s meaningful for us, where we can bring this topic back to our own country for further discussion. So I would like to briefly surface a few concepts before I start introducing our speaker today, which they will help us to get through all those questions we have. Terms like data residency, we might have heard before where people talked about data store or process physically within certain national borders. And later on, people also talked about data sovereignties, which elevate the concept into legal realm, signifies like data is not only physically be within a country, but also subject to certain countries’ laws and regulations. And ultimately, The aspirations in this domain is our topic today, digital autonomy. And so, we want to explore this bigger picture together. What does this concentration of cloud powers of a certain handful of great services that provides cloud services means for digital autonomy and what role should government play in ensuring security and compliance, especially when it comes to sensitive data, whether it’s personal or national. So, should countries be investing in sovereign cloud initiatives? These questions I want to plant in your head as we started this conversation later on. We’ll also have an open floor Q&A to the audience. But now, allow me to introduce our speaker. So, to my right is Anke, Deputy of Directors, Digital Economy, Netherlands Ministry of Economic Affairs. She studied international relations at the University of Groningen in the Netherlands and she started her career in Brussels as European Policy Advisor at VNO-NCW. And later on, returned to The Hague, where she is a civil servant at the Ministry of Economic Affairs. Now, of course, work as a Deputy of Digital Economy, Netherlands Ministry of Economic Affairs. Welcome, Anke. And to my right is Jeff from Microsoft. Jeff is the Vice President and Deputy General Counsel, Corporate, External and Legal Affairs of Microsoft. He’s been actually working in many different regions before, but now mainly focusing on their companies’ legal and corporate affairs across Europe, the Middle East and Africa. So, later on, we’ll hear from Jeff, who might have, you know, happen to be able to share more insights from, you know, a broader regional perspective. And online we have Agustina just checking with our online moderators if Agustina is with us. Awesome. Agustina is a lawyer with a master’s degree in public policy, currently pursuing an MPA in digital technologies and policy at University College London. She is innovations and digital technologies manager at Asuntos de Sol, where she leads efforts to strengthen democracy through inclusive tech policies in global south. And she recently did some research focusing on the intersections of technologies, equity, and governance with particular interests in AI, cybersecurity, and digital rights. So we get a really good panel today and I want to pass it over to our speaker because I’ve been speaking a lot already. We have plenty of our policy questions, many of them very compact, and I believe you can access them on the IGF website as well. First question actually to start with, to what extent is the current concentrations of the cloud computing market among global providers a problem for digital autonomy, security, and or innovation? Very compact questions, but I am aware that in Europe, for instance, the Netherlands have started some initiative around a more sovereign cloud initiative. And I may now perhaps pass it over to Anka to share some experience that you might have working in this area and then we can unpack and try to answer that question together.

Anke Sikkema: Okay, thank you very much. I think I take it off. Yes, easier. Yes, thank you very much. And I think it’s a good opportunity to be here and discuss these questions with you here at the IGF in this multi-stakeholder setting. Because there’s a lot to say, I don’t have the answers, and that’s why we’re actually here to discuss this all together from different angles. And what I can tell in response to the first question is a bit more about the situation in the Netherlands. Before I start, I’d like to stress, because we will talk about concerns mainly, I would like to stress the benefits of cloud for economy and for society as a whole. It’s an efficient way to storage data, it’s user-friendly, and we can’t think of a world without it. But however, we had some quite extensive debates lately about strategic autonomy in general, and more specifically, dependencies in the cloud market back home. And I would like to take you to 2023, when our government published a so-called DOSA agenda. And DOSA is an acronym for Digital Open Strategic Autonomy. We’ve been thinking about this for a longer time. And in this acronym, the word open is deliberately in this agenda, because we think it’s important to act globally as open as possible. But on the other hand, it aims to address strategic dependencies in the digital sector, and cloud is one of the priorities in this agenda. So the idea is to see where these dependencies are in which technologies. What happened is that research agencies in the Netherlands indicated that the market position of European… players is relatively weak, I don’t think it’s a surprise to say this anymore, in the cloud market. And another thing is that the use of cloud entails certain risks when it comes to maintaining control and access to sensitive and protected data. So it’s extra important when we talk about government data. What we see a bit broader than only in the Netherlands is in the EU. Of course, we are part of the EU and the EU has taken important legislative steps to protect and to mitigate the risks. So you can think about the European Data Act, the Data Governance Act and the Digital Markets Act. But on the other hand, it also started more to promote and to invest in projects in cloud and data infrastructure. So these two parts happened. And then in 2024, we had two interesting things. And I talk a bit from the government perspective and from the political world I work in. First of all, our country code top-level domain provider, which is SIDN from the .nl, announced that it wanted to move its domain registration system to Amazon Web Services, because its current system was becoming outdated and needed to renew. But this actually started a wide national debate, because people thought even technically advanced organizations as SIDN are not were not able to run certain systems in a European cloud party. So our minister was asked to investigate this case, and that’s actually what we did. And secondly, two members of Dutch parliament presented a draft bill with the catchy title Clouds on the Horizon. They expressed their concern regarding the dependency of the Dutch society and the Dutch government on big U.S. cloud providers. So this bill was drafted, and I think it’s good to mention here as well that that was also kind of a multi-stakeholder way of organizing this, because it was a group of stakeholders who drafted this together with those members of parliament from the technical community, civil society, academia, and from business community. And we see that the change of the geopolitical landscape led to a revised cloud policy when it comes specifically to use of government data in the cloud. So what we would like to say is that still, when I come back to the first agenda that I mentioned, so this DOSA agenda, Digital Open Strategic Autonomy, we say open to the outside world where possible and protective when necessary. So that’s how we look at it right now. Thank you.

Jenna Fung: Thank you, Anke, for sharing. Better to take it off. Thank you, Anke, for sharing the perspective from the Netherlands government. Now I actually would like to turn the same questions over to Jeff. Slightly different, because like I said, this is like a really compact situation. And also, as Anke mentioned earlier, it is concern and risk many of the time about how to control the data. And I saw you took a lot of notes, and you probably have some insights. But I want to add a little bit of the context on top of the questions. You know, in these days, especially with AI being so, you know, proliferating, and it is growing every single day without us being able to predict how exactly it is going. and many sees that as like amplifying some global concerns especially around this topic. I wonder if you could speak to how you know such a big service cloud service provider like Microsoft you know in the situation what’s their roles and responsibilities as someone especially not only businesses but some some of the governments also rely on your system because one of the examples is Canadian government use your system. So I would like to turn it over to you.

Jeff Bullwinkel: Well thank you Jenna for the introduction and for the chance to be here as well. Thanks to people in the room and those joining online for what I think is really a very timely conversation and a very important conversation and grateful to be sharing the platform here with Anke and Agustina as well online. I say a few things in response to that question Jenna perhaps building a bit on what Anke said as well and the first is to acknowledge very clearly that the concerns that we are hearing about today are very natural and understandable and appropriate frankly and I think it’s just very important to state that very directly. I would say that in many respects the concerns that we hear about around data privacy, data security, data and digital sovereignty are not new concerns. In many respects I think these concerns have been with us for a long time. I mean we can think back even to over now over 10 years ago whenever Snowden first fled the U.S. with four laptops and went to Hong Kong initially and then on to Russia and at that time you know trust became an issue and trust in technology frankly speaking became an issue and I think that we’re seeing some of those concerns around trust on the surface again in a very clear way and so while I would say that the concerns are not perhaps new around again sovereignty, autonomy and the like they are I think more pronounced perhaps and more frequent. in terms of how they come up in our own conversations given what is, after all, a relatively volatile geopolitical environment. And so that certainly does cause us as a company, as a major provider of services, to think hard about what we need to do to maintain trust. And trust really is the critical element here. And I had the privilege, by the way, Anke, of living in your great country for five years. And I learned at that time that a famous Dutch statesman in the 18th century once said that trust arrives on foot and leaves on horseback, which I think is absolutely true when it was said and certainly true now. And so we think about the fact that people will simply not use technology they don’t trust, and that guides everything that we do. And so I would say that as a company, we have a high degree of responsibility to think about these issues in the right way. In relation to AI, as you say, Jenna, this is the era of AI after all. I mean, it is here. It’s not new either, by the way, but it certainly is having a profound impact on every aspect of society in really very exciting ways. But again, the trust issue certainly looms large. It was eight years ago, in fact, that Microsoft as a company decided to articulate a set of responsible AI principles that were at that time designed to govern our own conduct and make sure that as we develop and deploy AI systems, we would do so in a way that reflects privacy and security, safety and reliability, fairness, inclusiveness, ultimately transparency and accountability. But equally, we’re just one company in one sector and we don’t make the rules. And so while we have our own approach to what I might describe as self-regulation, ultimately it’s up to governments to make the rules and for companies like ours to follow them. So in light of the most recent, I guess, dynamics we’re seeing geopolitically, we’ve taken some additional steps as well that perhaps get to some of the questions that Anka I think so effectively articulated. And this is a global audience in the room and a global audience, to be sure, online. But since we’re here in Europe, I would just emphasize, as a reference point, that we just about a month and a half ago articulated a set of European digital commitments that are very much designed, again, to get to the issues that I think are top of mind. One element of that really is making sure that we have a cloud and AI ecosystem that is broad and diverse. And we have our own infrastructure investments we make across Europe. Obviously, quite a lot of investment in the Netherlands, for sure, but elsewhere across Europe. In fact, we’ve committed to increased capacity over the next couple of years in Europe by 40%, which means that over a five-year period between 2023 and 2027, we’ll have double our capacity in infrastructure for hyperscale cloud services and AI services across Europe, with over 200 data centers in 16 different countries. These are investments that, for us, reflect an appreciation of the interdependence of what we are doing together with our European partners and allies. These are data centers that are not built on wheels. They are governed by the laws of the European countries in which we operate, just as the infrastructure we have elsewhere in the world is governed by local laws, and we’re not at all confused about that. Another element we’ve focused on with our new digital European commitments is this importance of maintaining digital resiliency, I’ll say, in this era of geopolitical volatility. And so, for instance, we’ve committed in this context to push back, including with litigation, in the event that there might be any order from any government anywhere in the world for us to seize or suspend cloud services, and that’s something that we think is especially important in today’s current environment. A third element we have in our European digital commitments is really focused on making sure we’re doing everything we can do to continue protecting and defending the Privacy of European Data, and in that connection we actually have invested over some years now in an EU data boundary for the Microsoft Cloud that allows us to commit to our customers that their data is stored and processed within the European Union and after countries as well. And we’ve taken also additional steps, too, in relation to sovereign controls to make sure that we are being responsive to the sorts of things we’re hearing from customers, from partners and from government stakeholders as well. So we’re doing various things in this area that we hope are going to be responsive to the concerns that are out there, but I’d also maybe just conclude by echoing the comment that Anke made, that it is natural and appropriate to focus on the challenges and the problems, but I think also the opportunity is so immense in this era of AI, and I hope in this conversation we can talk a bit more about that as well, because it’s pretty exciting what is happening.

Jenna Fung: Awesome. Thank you so much, Jeff. So far right now we can hear some key words coming up in the context of thinking, you know, the current concentrations of cloud computing markets. We can hear that there’s legitimate concerns around control of data, but at the same time around, you know, trust in this kind of services and the service provider as well. Before I turn it over to Agostina to add a little bit, I also want to bring up the second question because of Agostina’s background in that, and we can slowly ease into that part as well, because we talk a lot about dependencies on this dominant cloud providers, and you know, based on the topics around trust and legitimate concerns around controls of sensitive data, I wonder if Agostina can shed some light on how the situations are like in Global South, and you know, there’s a, you know, it’s probable that some other regions are using different kinds of service providers, not necessarily just U.S. based, but perhaps like Agostina can speak to more about the situations. Thank you. My transition right here is, earlier Jeff mentioned about transparency in accountabilities and that is also something that comes up a lot when different stakeholders bring up this very topic. And so leading us to question two, if we have to explore some shared approach that government, private sectors, civil society to manage strategic and regulatory and operational risk like the ones, some of the ones that we just mentioned and to whole service provider now very prominent private cloud services like the US-based companies but there’s other chances that you know different kinds of organizations or initiatives will emerge. Well this kind of like shared approach that we would want to take so that we are not losing the benefit of this kind of cloud service providing us because you know with the structure we have nowadays we are enjoying the cloud efficiency essentially and also you know scaling globally this is also something we’re enjoying but if we want to hold them accountable what are some shared approaches that different stakeholder could take. So now I would like to turn it over to Agustina and I’m so sorry if I make it overly complicated by you know putting the two questions together but I hope that you can give us some context from the perspective of Global South that will be very interesting to our audience today. Agustina over to you.

Agustina Brizio: Yeah thank you so much Jenna I will try to comprise everything. I’ll start with some key points that basically are some common threats. Some were already covered both by Anke and by Jeff, and I think they just light up the main discussions we have towards service providers. And when we think about cloud services in general, there’s a global concern about what’s happening with this key infrastructure upon we are basing our digital ecosystem and how we have a few dominant providers, maybe US-based companies that are in some point basically defining and shaping a little how digital landscape is going to be with some interventions from states regarding policy and some specific aspects. But we see, especially from the Global South, that many of this loss has a lot of challenges, mainly because of the transnational layer regarding both cloud and the Internet, and also about the power imbalances that usually these companies have when they face government. So in cloud services specifically, and since both Jeff and Anke talked about how relevant they are and how key they are to thinking the future of technology, this problematization is not about a matter of market shares or how it should be distributed among providers. It basically is how we are seeing who is taking decisions on the digital foundation of our societies. So here in Latin America, in general, we have a big dependency on these hyperscalers. We usually use mainly US providers, and that’s not only for the administration platforms that we use in governments, but it’s also where we host data, where a lot of our public policies are based on, and we cannot just take outside the picture the fact that many of the hyperscalers don’t even have a presence within the region. So it adds up a more complex layer on how to basically be able to regulate. or in some way exercise in an active way the concept of sovereignty translated into the digital world. And since many of these are basically relying on United States frameworks, because these companies are legally constituted there, this also poses a different layer of problematization into the democratic oversights that general society may execute through governments over these territories. So this, at least in Latin America, it’s not only like eroding our democratic construction, but it also diminishes the ability that governments have to respond into crisis, safeguard data or even to be able to design their own independent digital policies. So we’ve seen, especially in Europe, that several approaches have been led within a policy like GDPR, AI Act and the competences law market. There has been a lot of action from the state towards working in collaborations with these companies or trying to put like a digital rights framework within the development of these technologies. But still, when we are thinking it from the global south, there’s a really big imbalance and we have a massive regulatory gap towards how to basically work with this hyperscale because we want to have cloud services, we want to be able to develop better technological landscapes. But there hasn’t been like a concrete, there’s not like a tool that can be possibly used to basically reclaim some kind of tools regarding this so we can just foster progress. So I’m not going to get in depth in the problematic aspect. I think that probably a lot of our audience and people present their idea are quite aware what’s the problem with this big tech companies in general and how they affect not only markets, but also political sovereign decisions from governments. But I think that when we think about what to do with that, which is probably the thing we should all be trying to address more than the problems, there are some different actions that actually can be carried out in order to balance a little this power imbalance and this inequality situation. So that are, of course, really away from just technical fixes because it requires for governments and for every stakeholder actually to rethink the concept of sovereignty because when we usually talk about sovereign cloud initiatives or sovereign technologies, our mind instantly goes, okay, we need to have things within our territory developed by us and we have seen that this is not sustainable at a large scale. That requires too much investment and a lot of human talent that is not currently available, at least during the global subcountries. So we’re required to basically recognize and think as the folks on the cloud, as a strategic within the state. It’s not something that comes out and it’s just provided by a company for the government to be able to develop some services in a digital way. So we require from governments to think about different strategies in which you can address this ultra-concentrated market. For instance, and taking some of our experience in Argentina over the past years, there is always the solution to adopt a multi-cloud architecture in order to basically not have all the public services laid out on one provider generating a very critical situation. So in that way, when you think about different providers, not only the big ones, but also prioritizing local providers, you’re basically thinking about a more open standard guaranteeing portability and interoperability from a regulatory framework. At least this is a specific way in which basically as governments, we can rely on still using the cloud, still seizing all the opportunities and the power the cloud has in terms of innovation and of developing, but avoiding a little or not falling into the event or lock-in, which is probably the most critical situation, not in terms of a technological problem of interoperability. The problem with lock-in relies on the fact that the government is no longer able to take an autonomous decision once you have everything deployed in one provider, because we have a lot of problems with interoperability, without moving things, so by being able only to take some kind of decision regarding how services are provided, how data is stored. So I think keeping in mind this flexible structure helps a lot in order to be able to seize cloud services so we don’t have to sacrifice our performance while still retaining a little autonomy in terms of how to make decisions. And I think that to encompass this strategy of the multi-cloud architectures, there is a lot of investment required in both national and regional cloud capacities in this sense. So in Argentina, we did experiment a little with this. We have a telecoms provider, Arsat, it’s a company that basically provides internet services, satellite services, and it has a data center that is able to provide at least some kind of cloud services, and we wanted it to grow a little bit. So we tried with this approach. to basically foster innovation, target some specific investment within the company working with these big service cloud providers. So, our main goal with this kind of situation was to see that it is possible to think about different cloud models that not only are entirely public or entirely private that can actually have a blend and still maintain a little of public decision of frameworks that actually foster accountability, transparency and also in some way are thinking about the country’s long-term sovereignty because having a steady strategy that is rooted in some local actors also backs up into the educational ecosystem, the productive ecosystem, you are able to develop more targeted services to our local companies. So, it’s like a fuel to a general economy market into a productivity model, but this model is required basically to have a strong technical capacity, strong stable policy and basically a public mandate which was basically at least the thing we have a little more difficult within Latin America in general because we have a not very steady political landscape to encompass thinking about how we address tech in the long term as we are seeing that EU is more able to do so. And this is also very important because when we think about how we can shape cloud services or digital technologies in general, this is not something that can be achieved by the state itself. So, this requires to rethink how public and private sector interact among each other, how local industry, academia and civil society is incorporated in an effective governance framework, not only one that gathers multi-stakeholders in a table but then has only one or two stakeholders making the decision. So, that’s like the second key point of this, we need to rethink how we govern technology from a regional perspective, especially now that the geopolitical aspect of tech is being like so polarized and so critical. So, in this general context, we need to think a little more in a systemic way and being able to develop not only spaces to have different voices heard, we need to have like real enforcement mechanisms. And to finish on this about what actions can we actually take, I think our public procurement is amazing. level here. So the decisions are taking by government should take all this problems and this aspects into consideration. So we as governments we should be including in every public procurement contract things as data localization, as having over standards, as having a more transparent governance because those are the key aspects that governments actually can tweak a little in order to have some kind of impact in a landscape that it’s so big that they are not able to cover. So this is at least especially in our region, with the power imbalances we usually face, I think that these are like part of the key things that we can actually do that are doable and are achievable. And in that way, in an indirect way, at least help a little into targeting technical independence, because I think that the key thing with cloud services that are like, as the Internet was at one point, the other layer of every aspect of the digital ecosystem, we need to be able to permeate into that ecosystem, our values of justice, of inclusion, and now more than ever, of having a collective control of what’s happening there, because that’s why we kind of need to have solid infrastructures. But when we’re talking about infrastructures, it’s not just about thinking how efficient they are, how to make them more resilient and more secure, but we need to have a really social and democratic governance mechanism towards these infrastructures, because they are in some way becoming like a public good. So I think that this is at least one of the key issues on how we understand the cloud, what’s the layers and what’s the names we’re going to put on them to see what are the most effective policies and how to get basically all stakeholders engaged. Otherwise, this is always a discussion that seems to be reliant to engineers and to technicals, because the cloud is like that infrastructure that only concerns the technical community, whilst as we’re thinking, as you were saying, Jenna, with AI and everything, cloud is being like the spine of all the digital ecosystems. So I think that’s why we need to have a more socio-technical approach even to this, to start thinking how we want to govern it.

Jenna Fung: Awesome. Agostina, this is perfect timing, because I was about to stop you as well, because you bring up some really key, important topics into the conversation. because you bring up the conversation about democracy as well. But coming back to the original questions that we start with, I think some of the really key principle as we try to think of some effective policies to deal with the situations or share approach to counter our dependency on this very concentrated cloud services that we’re relying on these days is some of the things countries been doing in Latin America, for instance, is to, for instance, diversify their ecosystems and interoperability is also something that’s important. Perhaps the audience also have their own view, depends on what you subscribe to. And I would love to hear what you think it’s important for us to be a shared approach as you bring back the insights you get from this panel today, back to your own role, whether you are a policymaker or just someone working in NGO or whether you’re a student or not, because this is like a conversation where we need to have more stakeholder, but not so much only the government having control or the companies who are providing the services. So I guess like that’s one thing later on as we open the queue, we can continue and further the conversation right there. But one thing I really want to, for us to continue and dive deeper is about the part about more diverse and perhaps secure as well, as well as local, locally accountable cloud ecosystem as well. Because based on some examples that Agustina shared with us, looks like there’s like, these are some of the not only proposal. but some of the actions done by some countries or community out there. And so I wonder, as we are moving on with our conversations, what are some of the mix of perhaps market-driven innovations, regulatory oversights and potential public interests will be most effective in supporting this kind of development make the cloud ecosystem more diverse, secure and locally accountable. Of course, we have people from private sectors and government in person with us and we might have very different view and perhaps we can merge a little bit with our last question as well because now with the development of a conversation right here, I think our speaker right here also took some notes which we can kind of consolidate so we can open the queue sooner and answer those questions too. Of course, I want to explore, what’s the mix of different strategies like market-driven innovations, regulatory oversights and potential public investment could be effective in supporting the development of more diverse, secure and locally accountable cloud ecosystem. And what the role should governments, industry or different stakeholders in this room play in fostering domestic cloud innovation through whichever methodologies. I don’t want to make suggestions here to limit your thoughts. And so maybe I’ll pass it over to you, Anke and then later on to Jeff and see what’s insight you guys can put it out here before we go into Q&A.

Anke Sikkema: Yes, thank you very much. And I think that those are a lot of questions at the same time. I think we could talk about this for days maybe. So, but I’m trying to keep it short because I think it’s also important to hear more from you. or for the people to have some time for Q&A in this hour as well. When we talk about the role of governments, what we saw and what are three key words that I would like to express here, and those are protect, promote and partnership. So these three words are also at the core of the DOZA agenda I talked about before. Protect is about the legislation and it’s not only about protecting users but also to protect market parties, to create a level playing field. To promote is to stimulate innovation and the entry of new providers and to create scale and it’s only possible by partnership. As Agustina also said, it’s not only governments of course, it’s a partnership of businesses, governments and also academia who can work together. This cooperation I think is very important and in Europe we have this example of Gaia X where this was this consortium of 100 companies who work together. What we also see now is a new initiative which is called the Eurostack. Maybe some of you have heard of it. It’s an idea for a European industrial policy initiative bringing together tech, governance and funding for Europe-focused investments to build and adopt a suite of digital infrastructure. So it’s on all layers of the stack, from connectivity to cloud computing, AI and digital platforms. I think it’s good to be realistic in what is feasible, but it’s an interesting idea. What we see is that the concerns we had in the Dutch cloud market are not unique. are in more member states of the European Union, so it’s important to work together. And I think maybe to address the point that Jeff is making, and maybe it’s over to you then, I think it’s also good to look at the chances, not only at the concerns, but to look at all the possibilities there are in the digital sector and what it brings to the economy, but what it brings to society as a whole as well. So let’s find a balance in this discussion to look at both sides and to make them reinforce each other. Thank you.

Jenna Fung: Jeff, do you have any response?

Jeff Bullwinkel: Happy to pick up off Anke’s comment and also maybe respond to some of the things that Agustina said in her helpful intervention. One way to focus on the positive in relation to what can be achieved through hyperscale cloud services, say from Microsoft, in relation to important things around cybersecurity, for one thing, as well as innovation, I think for another. And thinking about cybersecurity, which is indeed top of mind or needs to be for all of us, we do have the ability to invest at scale, excuse me, in a way that does exceed what not just other companies might do, but even governments in some cases. And so, for instance, every day we have the ability to aggregate about 77 trillion different signals from our cloud services in a way that allows us to understand how the threat environment is evolving and therefore guard against cyber attacks and threats even before they eventuate. And that’s something that we want to make sure we do in partnership with government stakeholders as well through sharing threat intelligence and that sort of thing. I’d also maybe pick up on the question in relation to data residency as it relates to sovereignty and the sense people have of needing the right level of control. Ukraine’s digital infrastructure as well as critical infrastructure controlled by private companies that Microsoft detected and it was allowed to, working with Ukrainians and with President Zelensky’s office directly, to guard against effectively. At the time of this cyber attack and the kinetic attack, Ukraine had on its books a law that required government data to be stored within the borders of Ukraine. They suspended that law and that allowed Microsoft and some other companies to actually migrate their data from Ukraine across our own infrastructure in the European Union, paradoxically perhaps giving them data sovereignty by dispersing their digital assets across Europe. And in fact, it was not surprising that among the first buildings to be hit by Russian missiles and tanks were Ukrainian government data centers. And so it’s worth thinking about that in relation to this broader topic of sovereignty or perhaps I would say. Equally, I think it is helpful to think about this new economy that’s developing around AI, this era of AI, because indeed there is this new technology stack that has developed and there are three fundamental layers to the stack. One is infrastructure. The second layer is around models, foundation models themselves, and the third is around applications, and ultimately of course it goes to end users. I do think this conversation today and maybe more generally often tends to focus perhaps undue attention on the infrastructure layer at the expense of everything else. Of course, it’s critical. The infrastructure is absolutely critical, naturally. As I mentioned, we as a company have built immense infrastructure across Europe, around the world, precisely to make sure that we can be now, as we always have been, an open platform company on which others can innovate and grow. It may well be the case that governments across Europe, around the world, Latin America perhaps, decide to invest public resources in their own infrastructure, and that’s, of course, their prerogative. We might have a point of view about whether that’s the right use of resources given what’s already built, but we don’t have a vote. That’s quite clear. But I think if you focus so wholly on the infrastructure layer, you overlook the innovation that’s happening at the model layer and the application layer. And that’s what really is so exciting today, because there’s so much that is happening around the creation of foundation models, large or small, that can run on hyperscale cloud services infrastructure, including that provided by Microsoft. And here we are in Europe, and even taking just two examples of French companies, Mistral AI, that people may have heard about, Hugging Face, are two French champions that actually operate not just on Microsoft infrastructure, but others as well, but doing immensely exciting things at the model layer for the benefit of communities across Europe, across France, across Europe, around the world. And ultimately, of course, applications also are proliferating at immense speed, because the innovation opportunity for people, individual entrepreneurs, small companies, large enterprises, is absolutely immense. And so people shouldn’t overlook how much can be done, is being done, including for the benefit of communities across the global north and the global south. And in fact, I had the benefit, even over the past year, spending some time in Africa, I was visiting Kenya and Egypt and Nigeria, Tanzania, Rwanda, and in All of these different markets have the ability to meet with some people who are doing amazing things at the foundation model layer and at the application layer, so we shouldn’t lose sight of that. The last thing I would say, of course, is that it’s incumbent on a company like Microsoft to make sure that as we have this infrastructure we’ve built, it needs to be open and accessible. Indeed, one of our core European digital commitments builds upon an announcement we made about a year and a half ago around our AI access principles. It’s really all about making sure that as a company, again, we are providing open access to those who want to use infrastructure in a way that benefits people more broadly.

Jenna Fung: Thanks, Jeff. It’s interesting that I’ve been hearing all the remarks from all our speakers and I realize how the recent geopolitical atmosphere brings us back to the very conversations and discuss about how we deal with infrastructure. The internet today is very different from what the tech people imagined the internet could have been decades ago. I was not born yet, so I don’t know what exactly it is. We only have four minutes left, so it’s really the time for you guys to talk about what really matters to you. It’s time to speak for yourself and what makes sense for any kinds of stakeholders, government, private sectors, or yourself, civil society, to do because this is the critical moment where exactly we bring us back to the conversation around market concentrations. We talked about infrastructure exactly. How do you guys see it? Do we have any online questions? We have one onsite. Amazing.

Corinne Katt: Test, test. Yeah, you guys can hear me? Sorry. It’s so confusing when you can’t hear yourself. So thank you so much for the wide-ranging conversation. My name is Corinne Katt. I am the head of Team Digital at Human Rights NGO, Article 19, and also a recovering postdoc who wrote their work on the political economy of cloud. The question that I had, especially for Jeff Bullwinkle, was around the notion of the sovereign cloud, which I know has come up quite often, and I’m in that sense quite tied into the debates in the Netherlands, which is where I’m originally from. I was part of the, I guess, the group of people who vocally pushed back and saw some real dangers with, especially the Dutch government, moving to a cloud that we don’t fully control. And I was wondering if you could give your assessment of where the debate stands now, as I’ve obviously read European commitments, but it’s still unclear to me how that would preclude Microsoft from being beholden to the Cloud Act, the US Cloud Act. And I was wondering what you could say and what further information you could give about that. Thank you.

Jeff Bullwinkel: Well, thanks for the question. And again, I think this concern about sovereignty autonomy, as I mentioned, really is not new, but it is pronounced, and it’s coming up in a more, I think, focused way, given the somewhat volatile geopolitics of it. We have, for a long time, been focused on trying to build a public cloud that is sovereign by design, effectively. And we actually enhanced that recently with an announcement that was made just last week. In fact, in your home country, your country of origin, when our CEO Satya Nadella was in Amsterdam for a major event, and he gave a talk in which he announced a new approach to sovereign cloud in Europe in the context of these broader European digital commitments that I mentioned earlier. And he described, excuse me, he described a couple of different approaches. One is sovereign public cloud, which has various elements of control to it. And secondly, a sovereign private cloud, which is designed really for customers. And perhaps it could be the Dutch government as one such customer that has a particular set of needs that are very specialized, where you want to have absolute autarky, autonomy, disconnectedness, you know, separate and apart from the global internet. That’s certainly something we can provide as well and have announced as part of this broader effort around sovereignty. So we understand the nature of the challenge, I would say. In this announcement also that Schaake made, he emphasized as well the critical role that our European partner companies play, including in the Netherlands, but also across Europe. And we do, in fact, do a lot of work already with various European companies in the context of our broader cloud services with a focus on value-add services they can provide that often do focus on sovereignty considerations. You know, one such company is Leonardo in Italy, Proximus in Belgium, Telefonica in Spain. There are various companies out there we work with quite closely and will work with more with a focus on sovereignty. In connection with the Cloud Act, and this really gets to this question of U.S. government access to data, as I say, this is nothing new. It goes back to Edward Snowden, you know, 12, by now 12 or so years ago. There are lots of things that we have done as a company to make sure that we guard against the risk of intrusive access to data that really is our, it belongs to our European customers first and foremost. And so Microsoft’s view is, now always has been, that first of all, it is our customers’ data, not our data. And so as and when we have a request for access, we actually committed some years ago already to defend against that access request for data up to and including litigation with the U.S. government, even in the Supreme Court. And we actually have a strong track record of doing just that. And the last point I guess I would make as well is that in the context of cloud services today, you know, most European companies in this space also themselves have global aspirations. And therefore also, much like Microsoft or another U.S. headquarter company, will be susceptible. to a jurisdiction in the same sort of way. And so I think the question really for all of us is, what kinds of steps can a company with global aspirations take that will be effective? But make no mistake, we are very mindful of the fact that, as a company, we are investing in Europe, for Europe, with our European customers and partners and government stakeholders in mind, and in a way that will protect their data against improper access. That, by the way, goes also for services around the world, I would say. Awesome.

Jenna Fung: Since we are over time, I will intentionally not allow our speaker to do any remarks, because on this very topic, digital autonomy, you know, it is a topic that we should ask to every single one of you who are in there, because you can see, you know, today on this panel, we have prominent voices from the government, from the private sectors, but at the end of the day, it’s also related to the people, and each and every one of us are the one who should answer those questions. And on this very topic, it’s hard for us to leave the term sovereignty, and it is a slippery slope sometimes. So how should we approach it? What makes sense to you? And what should we do? Perhaps that’s something and a question that you can bring home and continue the conversation elsewhere. I think that concludes our conversation here today. Thank you so much for being with us. Thank you. . . . . . .

Agreement points

Cloud computing provides essential benefits despite legitimate concerns

Speakers

– Anke Sikkema
– Jeff Bullwinkel

Arguments

Cloud computing provides essential efficiency and user-friendly services that benefit economy and society

AI era creates immense opportunities across infrastructure, model, and application layers

Summary

Both speakers acknowledge that while there are legitimate concerns about cloud concentration, the benefits of cloud computing for economy and society cannot be ignored. They emphasize the need to balance addressing concerns with recognizing opportunities.

Topics

Economic | Infrastructure | Development

Concerns about cloud market concentration and digital sovereignty are legitimate and natural

Speakers

– Anke Sikkema
– Jeff Bullwinkel
– Agustina Brizio

Arguments

Strategic dependencies on US-based cloud providers pose risks to national security and data control

Market concentration among few major providers creates legitimate concerns about digital sovereignty

Global South faces power imbalances and regulatory gaps when dealing with hyperscale cloud providers

Summary

All three main speakers agree that concerns about the concentration of cloud services among few providers are legitimate, natural, and appropriate, though they come from different regional perspectives.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Cybersecurity | Infrastructure

Multi-stakeholder collaboration is essential for effective cloud governance

Speakers

– Anke Sikkema
– Jeff Bullwinkel
– Agustina Brizio
– Jenna Fung

Arguments

Government role involves three key elements: protect through legislation, promote innovation, and foster partnerships

Companies must follow government-made rules while maintaining self-regulation through responsible AI principles

Effective governance requires rethinking how public and private sectors interact with academia and civil society

Key questions about cloud governance require multi-stakeholder input beyond just government and companies

Summary

All speakers emphasize that addressing cloud governance challenges requires collaboration between governments, private sector, academia, and civil society, rather than any single stakeholder acting alone.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights | Economic

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers from government/policy backgrounds emphasize the importance of regulatory frameworks and government procurement policies as tools to address cloud dependency issues while maintaining benefits.

Speakers

– Anke Sikkema
– Agustina Brizio

Arguments

EU legislative measures like Data Act and Digital Markets Act help mitigate risks while promoting investment

Public procurement policies should include data localization and transparency requirements

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Economic | Infrastructure

Both speakers recognize that effective data sovereignty may require flexible approaches rather than strict data localization, though they approach this from different perspectives (private sector vs. government policy).

Speakers

– Jeff Bullwinkel
– Agustina Brizio

Arguments

Data sovereignty can sometimes be better achieved through distributed infrastructure rather than local storage

Multi-cloud architecture prevents vendor lock-in and maintains government decision-making autonomy

Topics

Infrastructure | Legal and regulatory | Cybersecurity

Both speakers support the development of regional and collaborative approaches to building cloud infrastructure capabilities, seeing this as a way to address dependency concerns while fostering innovation.

Speakers

– Anke Sikkema
– Agustina Brizio

Arguments

European initiatives like Gaia X and Eurostack aim to build collaborative digital infrastructure

Investment in national and regional cloud capacities can support local innovation ecosystems

Topics

Infrastructure | Economic | Development

Unexpected consensus

Flexibility over strict data localization requirements

Speakers

– Jeff Bullwinkel
– Agustina Brizio

Arguments

Data sovereignty can sometimes be better achieved through distributed infrastructure rather than local storage

Multi-cloud architecture prevents vendor lock-in and maintains government decision-making autonomy

Explanation

It’s unexpected that a major cloud provider (Microsoft) and a Global South policy advocate would agree that strict data localization isn’t always the best approach to sovereignty. Both recognize that flexibility and strategic distribution can be more effective than rigid local storage requirements.

Topics

Infrastructure | Legal and regulatory | Cybersecurity

Trust as fundamental challenge requiring ongoing attention

Speakers

– Jeff Bullwinkel
– Corinne Katt

Arguments

Trust is fundamental – people won’t use technology they don’t trust, and trust arrives on foot but leaves on horseback

US Cloud Act creates concerns about government access to European data despite company commitments to resist

Explanation

Despite being on different sides of the cloud sovereignty debate, both the Microsoft representative and the human rights advocate acknowledge that trust issues are fundamental and ongoing challenges that require continuous attention and cannot be easily resolved through technical solutions alone.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights | Cybersecurity

Overall assessment

Summary

The speakers showed remarkable consensus on the legitimacy of cloud sovereignty concerns, the need for multi-stakeholder collaboration, and the importance of balancing benefits with risks. They agreed that current market concentration creates real challenges while acknowledging cloud computing’s essential role in modern digital economy.

Consensus level

High level of consensus on problem identification and governance principles, with differences mainly in emphasis and proposed solutions rather than fundamental disagreements. This suggests a mature understanding of the issues across stakeholders and potential for collaborative policy development, though implementation details may still require negotiation.

Different viewpoints

Role of hyperscale cloud providers in cybersecurity vs. sovereignty concerns

Speakers

– Jeff Bullwinkel
– Agustina Brizio

Arguments

Hyperscale providers can invest in cybersecurity at levels exceeding individual governments, processing 77 trillion signals daily

Global South faces power imbalances and regulatory gaps when dealing with hyperscale cloud providers

Summary

Jeff emphasizes the security benefits and scale advantages of hyperscale providers, while Agustina focuses on the power imbalances and democratic oversight challenges they create, particularly for Global South countries

Topics

Cybersecurity | Legal and regulatory | Development

Infrastructure focus vs. innovation layer emphasis

Speakers

– Jeff Bullwinkel
– Anke Sikkema
– Agustina Brizio

Arguments

Focus shouldn’t be solely on infrastructure layer but also on innovation happening at model and application levels

European initiatives like Gaia X and Eurostack aim to build collaborative digital infrastructure

Investment in national and regional cloud capacities can support local innovation ecosystems

Summary

Jeff argues against excessive focus on infrastructure layer, preferring emphasis on model and application innovation, while Anke and Agustina advocate for building independent infrastructure capabilities as foundation for sovereignty

Topics

Infrastructure | Economic | Development

Distributed vs. localized data storage for sovereignty

Speakers

– Jeff Bullwinkel
– Agustina Brizio

Arguments

Data sovereignty can sometimes be better achieved through distributed infrastructure rather than local storage

Public procurement policies should include data localization and transparency requirements

Summary

Jeff uses Ukraine example to argue that distributed storage can provide better sovereignty protection, while Agustina advocates for data localization requirements as a tool for maintaining government control

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Cybersecurity | Infrastructure

Unexpected differences

Benefits vs. risks framing of cloud services

Speakers

– Jeff Bullwinkel
– Agustina Brizio

Arguments

AI era creates immense opportunities across infrastructure, model, and application layers

Cloud dependency affects democratic oversight and government ability to respond to crises

Explanation

Unexpected because both acknowledge cloud benefits, but Jeff consistently frames the discussion around opportunities and innovation potential, while Agustina emphasizes democratic erosion and crisis response limitations – representing fundamentally different risk-benefit calculations

Topics

Economic | Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Trust-building approaches

Speakers

– Jeff Bullwinkel
– Corinne Katt

Arguments

Trust is fundamental – people won’t use technology they don’t trust, and trust arrives on foot but leaves on horseback

US Cloud Act creates concerns about government access to European data despite company commitments to resist

Explanation

Unexpected because Jeff emphasizes trust-building through company commitments and technical measures, while Corinne questions whether these commitments can overcome fundamental legal framework issues like the US Cloud Act – suggesting structural vs. voluntary approaches to trust

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights | Cybersecurity

Overall assessment

Summary

Main disagreements center on whether solutions should focus on company commitments and distributed infrastructure versus building independent capabilities and stronger regulatory frameworks, with particular tension between innovation opportunities and democratic governance concerns

Disagreement level

Moderate disagreement with significant implications – while speakers share concerns about market concentration, their different approaches (corporate self-regulation vs. government intervention vs. democratic governance) could lead to incompatible policy directions and highlight fundamental tensions between efficiency, innovation, and sovereignty in cloud governance

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers from government/policy backgrounds emphasize the importance of regulatory frameworks and government procurement policies as tools to address cloud dependency issues while maintaining benefits.

Speakers

– Anke Sikkema
– Agustina Brizio

Arguments

EU legislative measures like Data Act and Digital Markets Act help mitigate risks while promoting investment

Public procurement policies should include data localization and transparency requirements

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Economic | Infrastructure

Both speakers recognize that effective data sovereignty may require flexible approaches rather than strict data localization, though they approach this from different perspectives (private sector vs. government policy).

Speakers

– Jeff Bullwinkel
– Agustina Brizio

Arguments

Data sovereignty can sometimes be better achieved through distributed infrastructure rather than local storage

Multi-cloud architecture prevents vendor lock-in and maintains government decision-making autonomy

Topics

Infrastructure | Legal and regulatory | Cybersecurity

Both speakers support the development of regional and collaborative approaches to building cloud infrastructure capabilities, seeing this as a way to address dependency concerns while fostering innovation.

Speakers

– Anke Sikkema
– Agustina Brizio

Arguments

European initiatives like Gaia X and Eurostack aim to build collaborative digital infrastructure

Investment in national and regional cloud capacities can support local innovation ecosystems

Topics

Infrastructure | Economic | Development

Key takeaways

Cloud market concentration among few major providers (primarily US-based) creates legitimate concerns about digital autonomy, data sovereignty, and democratic oversight

Trust is fundamental to cloud adoption – users won’t adopt technology they don’t trust, and maintaining trust requires transparency and accountability from providers

A balanced approach is needed that captures cloud benefits (efficiency, innovation, cybersecurity) while addressing sovereignty concerns through diversification and regulatory frameworks

Multi-cloud architecture and avoiding vendor lock-in are essential strategies for maintaining government decision-making autonomy

Effective cloud governance requires multi-stakeholder collaboration between governments, private sector, academia, and civil society rather than single-actor solutions

Government roles should focus on three pillars: protect through legislation, promote innovation, and foster partnerships

Public procurement policies can be powerful tools for incorporating data localization, transparency, and sovereignty requirements

Innovation opportunities exist across all layers of the technology stack (infrastructure, models, applications), not just infrastructure

Regional cooperation and hybrid public-private models can provide alternatives to complete dependency on global hyperscalers

Resolutions and action items

Participants should bring the conversation about digital autonomy back to their own countries and contexts for further discussion

Governments should incorporate data localization, open standards, and transparency requirements into public procurement contracts

Investment in national and regional cloud capacities should be prioritized to support local innovation ecosystems

Multi-cloud architectures should be adopted to prevent vendor lock-in and maintain decision-making autonomy

Unresolved issues

How to effectively address US Cloud Act concerns regarding government access to European data despite company commitments

What specific mix of market-driven innovation, regulatory oversight, and public investment would be most effective for developing diverse cloud ecosystems

How to balance the benefits of hyperscale cloud services with sovereignty concerns in practice

How to achieve sustainable local cloud development given limited investment capacity and human talent in many regions

What constitutes the optimal definition and implementation of ‘digital sovereignty’ versus complete technological autarky

How to ensure democratic governance mechanisms for cloud infrastructure that increasingly functions as public goods

How smaller countries and Global South nations can effectively negotiate with powerful hyperscale providers given existing power imbalances

Suggested compromises

Adopt ‘open to the outside world where possible, protective when necessary’ approach as demonstrated by Netherlands’ DOSA agenda

Implement sovereign cloud solutions that offer different levels of control – from sovereign public cloud to completely disconnected sovereign private cloud

Develop hybrid public-private cloud models that leverage global capabilities while maintaining some local control and decision-making authority

Focus on creating open and interoperable standards rather than complete technological independence

Pursue regional cooperation initiatives (like European Gaia X and Eurostack) that pool resources and expertise while maintaining some autonomy from global providers

Use partnership approaches with hyperscale providers that include European companies providing value-added sovereignty-focused services

Trust arrives on foot and leaves on horseback – a famous Dutch statesman quote that guides everything we do. People will simply not use technology they don’t trust.

Speaker

Jeff Bullwinkel

Reason

This metaphor powerfully encapsulates the central challenge in cloud computing discussions. It reframes the entire debate from technical specifications to fundamental human psychology and trust-building, acknowledging that all technological solutions are meaningless without user confidence.

Impact

This comment shifted the conversation from purely technical and regulatory concerns to the human element of technology adoption. It provided a philosophical foundation that influenced how subsequent speakers framed their arguments, with trust becoming a recurring theme throughout the discussion.

The problem with lock-in relies on the fact that the government is no longer able to take an autonomous decision… So we require from governments to think about different strategies in which you can address this ultra-concentrated market.

Speaker

Agustina Brizio

Reason

This comment redefines vendor lock-in not as a technical problem but as a democratic governance issue. It challenges the audience to think beyond efficiency metrics to consider how technological dependencies can erode governmental decision-making autonomy and democratic oversight.

Impact

This intervention fundamentally elevated the discussion from market competition concerns to democratic governance implications. It introduced the concept that cloud dependency isn’t just about economics or security, but about preserving democratic institutions’ ability to make autonomous decisions.

Ukraine suspended their law requiring government data to be stored within borders, and paradoxically achieved data sovereignty by dispersing their digital assets across Europe when Russian missiles targeted their data centers.

Speaker

Jeff Bullwinkel

Reason

This real-world example challenges conventional thinking about data sovereignty and physical location. It demonstrates how rigid interpretations of sovereignty can actually undermine security and autonomy, forcing a reconceptualization of what digital sovereignty means in practice.

Impact

This concrete example forced all participants to grapple with the complexity and potential contradictions in sovereignty concepts. It shifted the discussion from theoretical policy frameworks to practical realities, influencing how other speakers addressed the balance between ideological positions and pragmatic needs.

We need to have a more socio-technical approach… because cloud is being like the spine of all the digital ecosystems. This is always a discussion that seems to be relegated to engineers and technicals, whilst cloud is becoming the infrastructure that affects everyone.

Speaker

Agustina Brizio

Reason

This comment challenges the technical framing of cloud discussions and argues for democratizing the conversation. It recognizes that infrastructure decisions have profound social implications and shouldn’t be left solely to technical experts, calling for broader stakeholder engagement.

Impact

This observation broadened the scope of who should be involved in cloud governance discussions. It influenced the moderator’s closing remarks about how ‘each and every one of us’ should answer these questions, moving the conversation from expert-driven to citizen-inclusive governance models.

Open to the outside world where possible and protective when necessary – this is how we look at Digital Open Strategic Autonomy.

Speaker

Anke Sikkema

Reason

This formulation provides a nuanced middle path between technological nationalism and complete openness. It acknowledges that absolute positions are impractical while providing a framework for making contextual decisions about when to prioritize openness versus protection.

Impact

This balanced approach influenced how other speakers framed their arguments, moving away from binary thinking toward more nuanced policy positions. It provided a practical framework that other participants could reference when discussing their own regional approaches.

This conversation tends to focus perhaps undue attention on the infrastructure layer at the expense of everything else… you overlook the innovation that’s happening at the model layer and the application layer.

Speaker

Jeff Bullwinkel

Reason

This comment challenges the entire premise of focusing primarily on infrastructure ownership and control. It argues that innovation and value creation happen across multiple layers of the technology stack, potentially making infrastructure ownership less critical than commonly assumed.

Impact

This reframing attempted to redirect the conversation toward innovation opportunities rather than dependency concerns. While it didn’t fully shift the discussion’s focus, it introduced important complexity about where value and control actually reside in modern cloud ecosystems.

Overall assessment

These key comments collectively transformed what could have been a narrow technical discussion about cloud market concentration into a rich, multi-dimensional conversation about democracy, trust, sovereignty, and innovation. The most impactful interventions challenged binary thinking – moving beyond simple dichotomies of dependence vs. independence, local vs. global, or security vs. innovation. Instead, they introduced nuanced frameworks for thinking about these trade-offs contextually. The discussion evolved from identifying problems to exploring practical approaches that balance multiple competing values. The Ukrainian example and trust metaphor were particularly powerful in grounding abstract policy concepts in human realities, while the calls for socio-technical approaches and democratic participation broadened the conversation beyond technical experts to include broader societal stakeholders. Overall, these comments elevated the discussion from a policy workshop to a fundamental examination of how societies should govern critical digital infrastructure in an interconnected world.

How can the EU data boundary for Microsoft Cloud be further strengthened to ensure complete protection against US Cloud Act requirements?

Speaker

Corinne Katt

Explanation

This question addresses a critical gap in understanding how Microsoft’s European commitments actually protect against US government data access requests, which remains a key sovereignty concern for European governments and organizations.

What specific mechanisms can ensure effective multi-stakeholder governance frameworks beyond just gathering stakeholders at a table?

Speaker

Agustina Brizio

Explanation

This highlights the need for research into practical governance structures that give meaningful decision-making power to all stakeholders, not just token representation, which is crucial for democratic oversight of cloud infrastructure.

How can Global South countries develop sustainable technical capacity and stable policy frameworks for long-term cloud sovereignty strategies?

Speaker

Agustina Brizio

Explanation

This identifies a critical research area for understanding the specific challenges and solutions needed for developing countries to achieve digital autonomy without sacrificing technological benefits.

What are the most effective public procurement contract terms and enforcement mechanisms that governments can use to influence cloud provider behavior?

Speaker

Agustina Brizio

Explanation

This represents a practical area for further research into how governments can leverage their purchasing power to achieve sovereignty goals while maintaining service quality and innovation.

How can the balance between ‘open where possible, protective when necessary’ be operationalized in practice across different types of government data and services?

Speaker

Anke Sikkema

Explanation

This requires further research into developing clear frameworks and criteria for determining when protective measures are necessary versus when openness should prevail in cloud service decisions.

What lessons can be learned from the Ukrainian data migration case study for other countries’ data sovereignty strategies during crisis situations?

Speaker

Jeff Bullwinkel

Explanation

This case study raises important questions about how traditional data residency requirements may need to be reconsidered in light of physical security threats and crisis management needs.

How can innovation at the model and application layers be better supported and recognized in sovereignty discussions that tend to focus primarily on infrastructure?

Speaker

Jeff Bullwinkel

Explanation

This suggests need for research into more comprehensive approaches to digital sovereignty that consider the entire technology stack and innovation ecosystem, not just infrastructure ownership.

What specific steps should each stakeholder group (government, private sector, civil society) take to achieve meaningful digital autonomy?

Speaker

Jenna Fung

Explanation

This overarching question was posed to the audience as a call for continued discussion and research into practical actions that different stakeholder groups can take to address cloud concentration concerns.

Summary

This workshop at the Internet Governance Forum explored the intersection between competition law and human rights in digital markets, focusing on the European Union’s Digital Markets Act (DMA) and its implications for the Global South. Bruno Carballa from the European Commission explained that the DMA, implemented in 2022-2023, targets “gatekeeper” platforms like Google, Meta, Apple, Amazon, Microsoft, and ByteDance that meet specific size and market position criteria. The regulation imposes obligations such as allowing businesses to operate outside platforms, preventing data combination without consent, ensuring interoperability, and prohibiting self-preferencing of services.

Camila Leite Contri from Brazil’s IDEC argued that economic concentration directly impacts human rights, particularly freedom of expression, citing examples like zero-rating practices that limit platform choices for lower-income users and Google’s interference in Brazil’s fake news bill debate. She emphasized the need to connect competition law with human rights discourse, noting that monopolistic power translates into political influence that affects democratic participation. Hannah Taieb from Speedio discussed how market concentration in digital platforms undermines media diversity and editorial authority, leading to filter bubbles and misinformation spread through opaque algorithms.

The panelists addressed questions about creating alternatives to dominant platforms, particularly in the Global South, suggesting solutions like public digital infrastructure (citing Brazil’s PIX payment system), open-source alternatives, and bolder regulatory approaches. They emphasized the importance of interoperability, algorithm transparency, and unbundling of platform services. The discussion concluded with calls for more interdisciplinary dialogue between human rights advocates and competition law experts to develop comprehensive approaches to platform regulation that protect both economic competition and fundamental rights.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Digital Markets Act (DMA) and Economic Regulation**: The European Union’s DMA targets “gatekeeper” platforms (Google, Apple, Meta, etc.) with specific obligations to prevent abuse of market power, including allowing third-party payment systems, data portability, app uninstallation rights, and preventing self-preferencing. While primarily economic in focus, these regulations have indirect human rights implications.

– **Connection Between Economic Concentration and Human Rights**: Panelists explored how monopolistic control of digital platforms directly impacts fundamental rights like freedom of expression, access to information, and democratic participation. Examples included Brazil’s zero-rating practices that limit platform choice for lower-income users and Google’s interference in political discourse during Brazil’s “fake news bill” debate.

– **Global South Challenges and Alternatives**: Discussion of how developing countries like Brazil face infrastructure limitations and dependency on Big Tech platforms, with exploration of potential solutions including public digital infrastructure (like Brazil’s PIX payment system), open-source alternatives, and stronger competition authority powers to consider human rights impacts.

– **Business Models and Ethical Technology**: Examination of how current advertising-dependent models contribute to harmful content amplification and filter bubbles, with proposals for more ethical algorithms, transparent recommendation systems, and alternative monetization models that don’t rely solely on data exploitation and targeted advertising.

– **Regulatory Integration and Cross-Disciplinary Collaboration**: Strong emphasis on the need to bridge competition law, human rights advocacy, and technology policy, with calls for bolder regulatory approaches that consider human rights impacts in antitrust decisions and greater cooperation between different regulatory bodies.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to explore the intersection between competition law/antitrust regulation and human rights protection in digital markets, specifically examining how economic concentration of power among Big Tech platforms affects fundamental rights and what regulatory and business model alternatives could better protect both competition and human rights.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a collaborative and constructive tone throughout, with participants expressing genuine enthusiasm for cross-disciplinary dialogue. The tone was academic yet accessible, with speakers acknowledging their different professional backgrounds while finding common ground. There was an underlying sense of urgency about addressing Big Tech dominance, but the approach remained solution-oriented rather than purely critical. The atmosphere became increasingly optimistic as panelists and audience members, particularly from Brazil’s youth delegation, engaged with concrete examples and potential pathways forward.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Raquel da Cruz Lima** – Human rights lawyer from Brazil, works at Article 19 Brazil and South America (human rights organization dedicated to protection of freedom of expression)

– **Bruno Carballa SmichoWSki** – Research officer at the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre, economist working in the digital markets research team

– **Camila Leite Contri** – Representative of IDEC (Institute for Consumer Defense) in Brazil, has background in competition law

– **Hannah Taieb** – Leading business development for Speedio (now part of Mediagenix), specializes in commercialization of recommendation algorithms, has background in consultancy for public institutions on ethical algorithm implementation

– **Jacques Peglinger** – From business side, teaches digital regulation at a Dutch university

– **Audience** – Multiple audience members including Laura (youth program participant from Brazil), João (youth delegation from Brazil), and Beatriz (assistant professor in law at University of Sussex, UK, teaches Internet law regulation and platform regulation)

**Additional speakers:**

– **Juan David Gutiérrez** – Mentioned as joining online but did not participate in the recorded discussion

# Workshop Report: Competition Law and Human Rights in Digital Markets

## Introduction and Context

This workshop at the Internet Governance Forum brought together experts to explore the intersection between competition law and human rights in digital markets, with particular focus on the European Union’s Digital Markets Act (DMA) and implications for the Global South. The panel included Bruno Carballa Smichowski, a research officer at the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre (speaking in personal capacity); Camila Leite Contri from Brazil’s Institute for Consumer Defence (IDEC); Hannah Taieb from Speedio (now part of Mediagenix), specializing in recommendation algorithms for entertainment; and Raquel da Cruz Lima, a human rights lawyer from Article 19 Brazil.

The discussion featured active audience participation, including questions from Brazilian youth delegation members Laura and João, academic expert Beatriz specializing in internet law regulation, and Jacques Peglinger, who teaches digital regulation at a Dutch university.

## The Digital Markets Act: Framework and Implementation

Bruno Carballa Smichowski provided insights into the DMA, emphasizing that his views were personal and not official European Commission positions. The DMA entered into force in November 2022 and became applicable in May 2023, targeting “gatekeeper” platforms that meet specific criteria including revenues or market capitalization above 7.5 billion euros.

Six companies have been designated as gatekeepers: Google (Alphabet), Meta, Apple, Amazon, Microsoft, and ByteDance. These platforms face obligations including allowing businesses to operate outside their platforms, enabling data portability, permitting users to uninstall pre-installed applications, ensuring interoperability with third-party services, and prohibiting self-preferencing.

Enforcement has begun with cases against Apple and Meta. Bruno mentioned fines of 500 million for Apple and 200 million for Meta, though noted these figures were preliminary. The DMA coordinates with the Digital Services Act (DSA) through shared procedures while maintaining distinct objectives.

Bruno acknowledged questions about whether generative AI should be included in DMA categories, indicating this remains an evolving area of regulatory consideration.

## Economic Concentration and Human Rights: The Brazilian Perspective

Camila Leite Contri presented research on how digital platforms function as gatekeepers of human rights, with economic concentration directly impacting fundamental freedoms. Her research on how lower socioeconomic classes use the internet in Brazil revealed concerning patterns.

She highlighted zero-rating practices where users with prepaid mobile data plans can access certain platforms—primarily WhatsApp, Facebook, and TikTok—without consuming data allowances. For citizens with limited data budgets (typically four gigabytes monthly), this artificially constrains platform choices, directly impacting freedom of expression and access to diverse information.

Camila provided a striking example of Google’s political interference during Brazil’s “fake news bill” debate. During the crucial voting week, Google displayed messages on its main website asking “How can the bill, the fake news bill, worsen your internet?” Additionally, searches about the fake news bill returned sponsored links promoting opposition to the “censorship bill.”

She argued for integrating human rights considerations directly into competition law analysis rather than treating them as separate domains, calling for competition authorities to adopt bolder approaches including potential company breakups.

## Media Diversity and Algorithmic Transparency

Hannah Taieb focused on how market concentration undermines media diversity, highlighting the shift from information consumption within defined editorial contexts to algorithmic feeds where logic is invisible and data collection intrusive. She noted that the creator economy and influencer culture increasingly dominate over trained journalism.

Hannah demonstrated that technical solutions exist for ethical approaches to content recommendation that maintain user experience while respecting privacy and providing transparency. She advocated for algorithm pluralism and interoperability as essential for diverse information ecosystems, emphasizing that users should understand recommendation logic and have choices about content curation.

## Public Alternatives and Digital Infrastructure

Bruno highlighted Brazil’s PIX payment system as an exemplary model of public digital infrastructure challenging private platform monopolies. PIX succeeded through public investment combined with mandatory interoperability requirements, forcing all financial institutions to integrate with the system.

This example provided evidence that alternatives to dominant platforms can achieve widespread adoption when properly designed and regulated. Key success factors included government backing, universal interoperability requirements, and user convenience matching existing alternatives.

The discussion extended to other potential public infrastructure areas, including cloud services and social media alternatives, with Bruno suggesting open-source solutions combined with public procurement requirements could promote alternatives across various sectors.

## Cross-Disciplinary Dialogue and Coordination

A recurring theme was the artificial separation between regulatory domains. Camila noted feeling isolated discussing human rights in competition law circles and equally isolated discussing market concentration in human rights spaces.

Raquel reinforced this from a constitutional perspective, arguing that states have duties to consider human rights implications in all regulatory decisions, including competition matters. This provides legal foundation for integrating human rights analysis into economic regulation.

The discussion explored practical coordination mechanisms, including shared procedures between regulatory frameworks and empowering civil society organizations to participate more effectively in market-oriented discussions.

## Global South Perspectives and Challenges

Audience members from Brazil’s youth delegation raised questions about how countries with limited technological infrastructure can develop competitive alternatives. Laura asked about Global South protagonism in platform regulation, while João questioned user incentives for switching platforms despite network effects.

The discussion revealed both challenges and opportunities. Infrastructure limitations create barriers, but examples like PIX demonstrate that strategic public investment with smart regulation can create successful alternatives in developing economies.

Panelists suggested focusing on digital public infrastructure development, supporting open-source alternatives through public procurement, requiring interoperability to reduce platform lock-in, and developing regulatory approaches considering human rights impacts in competition decisions.

## Regulatory Coordination and Implementation

Beatriz, an academic expert in internet law regulation, asked about coordination between different regulatory frameworks. The discussion revealed both opportunities and challenges in aligning competition law, data protection, and human rights approaches.

Bruno discussed coordination between DMA and DSA implementation, while panelists acknowledged that different jurisdictions may need adapted solutions based on legal systems, institutional capacities, and political contexts.

The conversation also addressed Brazil’s “revolving door” problem in cloud services, where officials move between regulatory positions and private companies, potentially creating conflicts of interest in infrastructure decisions.

## Key Areas of Agreement and Tension

Panelists demonstrated consensus that economic concentration has direct human rights implications and that interoperability is crucial for breaking platform monopolies. However, disagreements emerged regarding whether regulatory approaches should maintain primarily economic objectives with indirect human rights benefits, or directly integrate human rights considerations into competition law.

There were also differences regarding intervention intensity, with some emphasizing targeted approaches like the DMA while others advocated for more aggressive interventions including company breakups.

## Questions and Future Directions

The discussion identified ongoing challenges including network effects that maintain user loyalty to dominant platforms despite alternatives, infrastructure development needs in Global South countries, and sustainable funding mechanisms for ethical technology alternatives.

An audience question about generative AI regulation highlighted emerging challenges as technology evolves beyond current regulatory frameworks.

## Conclusion

The workshop successfully demonstrated the value of interdisciplinary dialogue in addressing platform governance challenges. By integrating perspectives from regulation, civil society, business, and academia, the discussion revealed interconnections between economic concentration and human rights while identifying potential solutions.

Concrete examples—from Brazil’s zero-rating practices to Google’s political interference to PIX’s success—grounded theoretical concepts in practical experience. The consensus between different stakeholder perspectives suggests maturing understanding of these challenges that could facilitate more integrated policy approaches.

Raquel concluded by referencing Article 19’s policy paper “Taming the Big Tech,” emphasizing the continued need for coordinated approaches addressing both economic competition and fundamental rights in digital markets.

Raquel da Cruz Lima: Hi, hello, everyone. It’s a great pleasure to welcome you all to this workshop called Competition Rights Approach Digital Markets. Before we start, I’d like to invite anyone who would like to be with us here at the roundtable. You would have mics, so it makes it easier to make questions in the end of the session. So please be free to sit here with us like André. I would like to thank especially our panelists for being here, first Camila and Hannah, who are here in person, and also Bruno and Juan David, who will be joining us online. Before I give the floor to our panelists, let me introduce myself. My name is Raquel da Cruz Lima. I’m a human rights lawyer from Brazil, and I work at Article 19 Brazil and South America, a human rights organization dedicated to the protection of freedom of expression. Under the perspective of freedom of expression, diversity and pluralism are vital. For that reason, human rights bodies, such as the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, have long stated that the means by which freedom of expression is exercised are owned by monopolies, then the circulation of ideas and opinions is limited. Therefore, in order to protect freedom of expression and access to information, states have a duty to prevent excessive concentration. the objectives of the DMA, how it proposes to address the issue of concentration of power in digital markets and if the protection of freedom of expression and other human rights was one of the goals pursued by the DMA. So, Bruno, I would appreciate if you could start by introducing yourselves and let us know a bit more about the DMA. Thank you so much for being here.

Bruno Carballa SmichoWSki: Hello, thank you very much for the invitation. Hello everyone, I’m Bruno Carballa. I’m a research officer at the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre, which is an institution of the European Commission that does research to support evidence-based policy, including the DMA. I’m an economist working in the digital markets research team. So, I will try to walk you through in a couple of minutes the spirit of the DMA, to explain the Digital Markets Act, also called DMA, and how I think it links to the issues, the broader issues that were being discussed today. So, perhaps a very small disclaimer about what the DMA is. Oh, can you hear me? Yeah, you’re back. Ah, okay, sorry. So, as a first clarification on the Digital Markets Act, or DMA, it’s a regulation that has, let’s see, a pure economic… objective, which is precisely to reduce the market power of the so-called gatekeepers. I will come in a second to which of these platforms are called gatekeepers. But this obviously has indirectly an effect on the capacity of these platforms to abuse their power in non-economic ways. This is more of the goal of discussion of this forum, such as all sorts of human rights violations. That said, obviously there are other regulations that have a specific target that are non-economic and have more to do with human rights. So I’m thinking specifically of the DSA, Digital Services Act, which is a kind of a companding sister regulation that aims to curb issues such as disinformation or discrimination and so on. So that said, I’m going to try to walk you through what is the spirit of the DMA, how does it work and what are the expected effects of this new regulation. So first thing in terms of timeline, it’s quite a recent regulation for the legal time of application. It entered into force in November 2022 and it became really applicable in terms of articles in May 2023. So we’re talking about two years now of the DMA, which given the length of this type of cases is quite young. We’re starting to see, I will talk about this in a couple of minutes, the first decisions on how companies are or are not following the rules of the DMA. So the idea of the DMA, as I said before, is to curb the power of the so-called gatekeeper platforms. So for that first, it defines what the gatekeeper platforms are. So for different criteria, and there are both quantitative and qualitative. So the first one is it has to be big platforms, so it is not to regulate every single platform on the internet which would be practically impossible, but those that do have a much stronger impact. So in that sense, the first criterion is that these platforms have to have at least 7.5 billion in the last three years of revenues or market cap, so to show they have a big economic power in terms of size. They have to be part of one of the so-called core platform services, so these are services that are deemed to be particularly important in the digital space, so online intermediation could be any sort of marketplace, search engines, social networks, video sharing platforms like YouTube, number independent communication services are basically messaging apps, virtual assistants, web browsers, operating systems, cloud computing, and online advertising, and this is the first list that is going to be revised, and one of the discussions for example that is going on right now is should we include generative AI under a new category such as GPT and so on, or does it actually fit to be into one of the categories which is the search engines. So these are basically platforms that are in critical areas that are important in terms of size and therefore potential impact, and that have been in a durable position so on, so it means that these criterias have been met in at least the last three years, meaning that it’s not just by chance that they had a lot of users seasonality-wise, and then so there are these means these platforms have been there having power for at least three years. So and what is the aim of this, why this new regulation? Well the main reason is that the existing regulation and competition law which is aimed to sanction anti-competitive behaviors usually It actually has, for many different technical reasons, a difficulty in being applied to certain conducts that are typical of these platforms, and comes in too slowly. So the idea is to regulate it ex-ante. So before any abuse of power can take place in the economic sense of the word, try to create new rules, new obligations to these platforms so they cannot abuse their position of power. So once the platforms are designated as gatekeepers, and here you have the usual big platforms that you all have in mind. The designated ones are Alphabet, so that’s the Google conglomerate. We’re talking about Amazon, Apple, Bytance, which has TikTok, Meta, where all the Facebook family products, Instagram, so on, and Microsoft. So we’re talking here about, let’s say, the main platforms that have the most powers in the internet. So these gatekeepers that have been already designated because they meet these criterias that I was mentioning before, have new obligations they didn’t have until two years ago. So these obligations are of different ways of trying to make the platforms not abuse their power. So the first one is they have to allow business to offer the products and services outside of a platform. So there’s been many cases where, for example, an app by a small developer or even big developers have the issue that they have to go through the app store, which takes a big cut, usually around 30%, and they cannot promote in any way a link to, say, pay outside of the platform or allow the platform system and take business outside. So the platform is kind of abusing the fact that it’s precisely the gatekeeper between people who have phones and people who want to reach apps, because the only way to reach apps is through their store, and they’re using that to, say, extract all this value from the apps. And that, in turn, obviously will end up not benefiting consumers, because then apps are going to be… And then there’s other provisions about usage related to the access to data, usually the business users, meaning, for example, an app or meaning a seller on Amazon, usually don’t have access to the data about the people they interact with, which they could use in their daily life. So, the new obligation is that they have to be given access to this data to better compete. Another third obligation is to allow users to uninstall pre-installed apps. So, you see many platforms have used the fact that they run also the operative system of a phone, for example, to pre-install apps you cannot uninstall. So, Safari in Apple is a classic example. So, you end up using their browser because they put it there and you cannot take it out. So, now they’re obliged to allow you to take it out. So, again, there could be more competition and new browsers can come in. And if you want, for example, a privacy preserving browser like DuckDuckGo, you can download it and even uninstall the other one, which should not be predetermined to take you always to remain within the ecosystem of the dominant platform. Another obligation is about refraining from combining personal data from different platforms. So, for example, Google obviously has a lot of different platforms about the same users. So, they know where you go looking for food in maps, they know what you look for in a search service, and they can combine that personal data. So, if you don’t consent to that, they should not be able to do that. And not to use the power of merging data from many markets, so nobody can challenge them in any market. Because obviously it’s very difficult to replicate the fact that a few gatekeepers have access to multiple sides of our lives as users, or think of this even for business users. People who use a Microsoft suite, who have like the cloud and the operative system. So they collect all the data and it’s very difficult for someone from a non-GitKeeper platform to replicate that. And in the same spirit, another important obligation is that of ensuring interoperability for third-party software. So that’s a classical problem that a lot of complementers in the ecosystem are facing is that because they’re not interoperable, they can’t add services on their own. Finally, about the advertising market. Same about having more transparency about the data and the pricing of advertising, because those markets are very concentrated into basically Google and Facebook, so Alphabet and Meta, that they control pretty much all the value chain of online advertising. So again, it’s very difficult to compete with that, which in turn leads to higher prices for advertising and eventually to higher prices for we consumers of anything that uses advertising online. Finally, other obligations include allowing app developers to use third-party payment systems. So in the same spirit of letting them doing business outside of the Gatekeeper or not going through the Gatekeeper, they should be able to pay with something else that, for example, Google Pay or Apple Pay. And the so-called anti-self-referencing obligation, which is when a platform also is a seller in the platform or has another product, has an obligation not to push users to use it. So for example, when you used to look for something on Google, you might find that always the link goes to Google Maps. Now in Europe, it doesn’t do anymore because of this. Or Amazon that tries to allegedly push its own products, so you end up buying the Amazon basics in the platform, not independent buyers, independent sellers, sorry. So these type of things now are being scrutinized by the Commission to make sure the platforms, again, do not use. their power as gatekeepers to make the competition less fair and therefore to harm consumers because of less competition. Then lastly, the obligations about not preventing users from switching between apps by making it difficult from a technical point of view if you want to change provider and inform the commission about any potential acquisition that might impact this. So these are the obligations as you see they’re all aimed at again regulating platforms are big they have a lot of impact in specific markets are critical and trying to make them new rules, obligations are like asymmetric in the sense that only this big platform have these obligations and not the small ones so as they cannot abuse their power and harm the competitors and consumers. And where are we with this now? Again this is young, it’s only two years but in these two years we already have four cases open, three against Apple and one against Meveta so basically against Apple we have one against this anti-steering or anti-self-preferencing this idea that the platform might benefit its own products using its power as a gatekeeper and so far Apple has been hit a fine of 500 million so far so this is all public information you can check the decisions and the whole process. Also Apple has been open a case in terms of the issue of non-compliance with the choice screen so the idea that to give users other options you should give a choice screen for example when you want to open a link do you want to use Apple’s browser or do you want to use also other browsers? And the commission found they’re not being compliant with the way they’re implementing this because they might be trying to trick users into still using their own browser despite the fact of a choice screen. Another case that’s being open against Apple, again, the third one, is about the specification decisions on Connected App. This is a more technical one, but it’s about basically how Apple is implementing the interoperability, and the case is about the commission saying you’re not really making this interoperable as it should be to make it easier for any third party who wants to add products to your ecosystem. And finally, the last case ongoing is one against Meta. It is basically challenging this consent or pay model, the idea that you cannot use a product unless you consent to what are deemed abusive terms in terms of access to your data and use of personal data, because basically they’re saying, well, Meta is still not offering a free equivalent and less data-intensive alternative. So there basically is either you use my product for free and we abuse, let’s say, the data we collect and we exploit from you as a user, or you have to pay to me. So the commission is saying there has to be some middle point. And so far, well, Meta has been fined 200 million on this, and this is obviously in appeal. But as you see, in two years, we have already four cases open and more will probably be open or scrutinized in the future. And hopefully if the application of the DMA is effective, we should be seeing digital markets in which the dominant platforms should have less capacity to abuse their gatekeeping power, which should, again, benefit consumers and in turn, give them less power to abuse consumers or users in other non-economic ways. Thank you very much.

Raquel da Cruz Lima: Thank you so much Bruno for bringing this great perspective from the DMA. You were quite clear that the objectives were really related to the economic field, but we heard some concepts that are really close to human rights, such as to prevent that the platforms not abuse their power. And also the concern about not harming consumers. So I’d like to turn to the Global South and ask you, Camila, if hearing about this idea of gatekeepers that the DMA had in mind, do you think that maybe from the perspective of Brazil or the Global South, we could consider the major digital communication platforms as gatekeepers of human rights? And do you think there is a link between economic concentration and fundamental rights? And also, Camila, if you could start introducing yourself, I’d appreciate it. Thank you.

Camila Leite Contri: Of course. Thank you so much, Raquel. Article 19. It’s a pleasure to be here in this panel with you. Short answer, yes, I’ll go for it. But it’s a pleasure to be here representing IDEC. IDEC is the Institute for Consumer Defense. It’s based in Brazil and has more than 35 years of experience in protecting consumers through advocacy, campaigning and strategic litigation, including against big techs. I have a background in competition law as well, so disclaimer. But I always felt kind of isolated in both fields, both in competition law, where you’re talking about human rights in the digital sphere, and both in civil society, in the human rights side, talking about, talking within the language of market. So I think that my personal, I would say my personal goal, my personal willing, is try to connect the both fields to answer this question and to have more people breaking this barrier to understand that, yes, monopoly competition issues are key to human rights and we should analyze them together. But the reality is that, for example, this is, I believe, the only panel in IGF that we are talking about competition or anti-monopoly, and I don’t say this is a personal criticism, but the need that we have to discuss this more. And I think this is a consequence that we still have this pervading narrative that in the market we should to understand that competition authorities currently have the attribution and the power to consider this kind of consequences, maybe in a mediate way, so indirect way, but monopolies, the concentration of economic power, are foundational to most of the issues that we see, not the only ones, but mostly of the problems. We currently have a society that is tech-mediated, our citizenship is tech-mediated, and I can personally talk about Brazil, sharing some experiences on how Brazilians deal with internet and especially lower classes. IDEC has a research on how lower classes uses the internet, and in Brazil we still have this zero rating practices, in which people that use prepaid mobile data, so people that have data caps, they mostly use the platform, the applications that don’t spend their mobile cap. So, we currently have people that have, for example, per month, four gigabytes, and WhatsApp, Facebook, and TikTok don’t spend internet, so why would someone have an incentive to use another platform, and how this is important to how the debate is developed on how people express themselves. So we currently have an issue of concentration on the discourse, the possibilities on how we can express ourselves, and I think this is one good example. The second thing is… The way that we use platforms, it’s beyond not being a choice that we currently have. The platforms are profiting for, sorry I forgot the word in English, but for political disputes, extremism, and this kind of discourse unfortunately is how it affects freedom of expression. But meanwhile platforms are gaining, are profiting from that. So this is very concerning. And the third point that for me it’s an example on how the economic power also translates into other kinds of power and indirectly or directly affect human rights is how they interfere also in the political dimension on the political discourse. And for that I would like to bring a concrete example on how one specific big tech influenced the public discourse in Brazil. But first let me get back to what Bruno said about the DMA. In Brazil we are currently discussing not a DMA but a possibility of developing a new regulation, not a regulation but a way to improve the attribution of the competition authority to deal with digital markets. And although human rights is not embedded in there, some examples on how the DMA could be interpreted as having a good consequence in human rights could be also imported in Brazil and adapted to Brazil. The limitations on data sharing and the prohibition on the payer consent, so the prohibition on people having to decide whether they have their rights respected or would they have to pay for it. It’s a good example. The second thing is that creating possibilities for users to choose the platforms that they use could also mean having platforms that have moderation rules that are less restrictive in freedom of expression and could also promote other rights and, for example, limit misogynistic speech. And the third example, and that’s… That’s why that is when I will enter in the concrete example in Brazil is about limitations on self-preferencing. So Bruno mentioned the example that Google cannot, when you search for a place, cannot in Europe move directly to Google Maps because this is a way of self-preferencing another Google service. And in Brazil, we had an interesting case that was presented before the competition authority CADE that was about maybe a political self-preferencing. So during the week of the votation of the Brazilian DSA, the Brazilian Digital Services Act, which was called publicly the fake news bill, Google put in the main website. So below the search, they put, how can the bill, the fake news bill can worsen your internet? Sorry, the fake news bill can increase the confusion on what is true and a lie in Brazil. And this phrase directed to a blog post saying that this bill can worsen the internet as you know and could change the internet for worse. And when would you search for a fake news bill? The first link that would appear would be a promoted, a sponsored link by Google saying no to censorship bill. So how can we have a free space of debating when the, I wouldn’t say the only search platform, but basically the only search platform that people use in practice put this and change the whole debate. Is this a free way to interact in platforms? So trying to move more on what we can do about that, we have this, I believe that we have a common sense that this power is exercised in different ways and economic power can be translated into political power and this has consequences on human rights. So what we can do, maybe as civil society, empower ourselves to also talk about this market language. We need not to… Juan David Gutiérrez, Juan David Gutiérrez, Hannah Taieb The title of this work is the unbundling of content curation and hosting services. The proposal that Article 19 has related to timing the tax. I’m happy to continue talking. Thank you so much.

Raquel da Cruz Lima: Thanks Camila. This was so great and spoke so close to my heart because I’m only a human rights lawyer. That’s only my only background and for me everything is new now, discussing competition law and antitrust and I think what is really powerful of being here at the IGF is exactly that idea of bringing people together from different sectors. The opportunity to talk to business and state, civil society and academia. This is exactly what we need and I don’t think that we need to go back and forget our backgrounds but exactly put them together and make it more powerful. And I think that something you said was quite important. The idea that business and also other authorities, they are all obliged by the constitution and in the human rights field, especially in the international community, We have long discussed the duty of a control or conventionality by every member of the state. So whatever their conduct is, they have the duty to take into consideration the international treaties that were ratified by the states. So why human rights not taken into consideration when competition is discussed and also when other actors are, especially in this field, as you said, when tech is mediating the access to every kind of right, we need human rights to be taken into consideration and we from human rights backgrounds also need to learn more from business, from competition law and so on. So with that, I’d like to turn to you, Hannah, because as Camila said, that there are discussions in the private sector that have impact on our rights. And I think you have now a great experience to share with us with what we can expect in an environment with more competition, as Bruno brought, what kind of business opportunities are there that can emerge and how those opportunities may take us to business that are more aligned to human rights goals and standards. And also, please, if you can introduce yourself as a beginner. Thank you so much.

Hannah Taieb: Thank you. Thank you very much for having me here. So I’m leading business development for Speedio, which is now part of Mediagenix, a company that is specialized in the commercialization of recommendation algorithm that we want ethical, controllable and accessible. We are specializing in the entertainment sector, working with players like Claro in Brazil, Sky, DirecTV, Latam, Canal+, Globo, TV5, and I’m also, I have a background also in consultancy for the public institutions on how to implement more ethical algorithm globally. So as you were saying. Indeed, private companies, whether solution providers like we are, but also traditional media outlets or even social media platforms, while pursuing, of course, profit and protecting their own interests, also bear the responsibility not only to respect the law, but also setting the standards for ethical and transparent AI, especially in media and entertainment. Our influence, shall I say, goes beyond business operations. They help shape the very technologies through which millions of people engage with culture and information every day. So the way those companies, including us, we are doing business, directly affects our rights, but I mean our rights as civil society, to information, free speech, media freedom and privacy, which are, I think, the human rights we are discussing today. So one trait we can observe is a raise of distribution of information without anchors. So it means that it brings media fragmentations and a decline of editorial authorities. So as we all know, content and information now circulates primarily through social media, which is leading to, indeed, a monopoly of the big tech on the distribution of information. So the presentation of this content is governed by algorithms that remain opaque and inaccessible to most users. And how personalization is done in that case, as you know, largely by collecting private data with no or little regard for actual transparency or contextual understanding. So this lack of contextual framing, it contributes to the spread of misinformation. It weakens the audience’s ability to detect bias and undermines the visibility of sources. So, you know, as earlier generations were encountering information with very well-defined context in… In environments such as newspapers, like reading the New York Times or watching the BBC, it implies assumptions about style, tone, political orientation, which in other words we can call context. But today, many young users, the only information they encounter comes through feeds, where logic is invisible and intrusive. Medias become more ambient and anonymous. The user is exposed, but not oriented by an editorial line. I think here we are all familiar with the theory of the filter bubble and how the impact on democracy is not to prove for the past 10 years. It affects public discourse and political life and access to shared truth. From another angle, traditional media organizations are increasingly burned by economic pressures and difficulty to achieve profitability. It undermines their position and their capacity to provide quality information. Many of the traditional media outlets that we are navigating towards today are financed by either wealthy owners or public funding. Even media platforms that in the past were a tribe on the attention economy, relying on advertising, are today facing financial difficulties because everyone and the advertisers’ budgets are going towards individuals, and by individuals I mean influencers, and the creator economy has become a dominant force. The data is here, and at the same time, the branded content of the past decade has blurred the line between advertising and journalism. I think these shifts raise important concerns about access to reliable information, and especially in the monopoly of social media we have today. Of course, introduction of various international regulations that are designed to address this issue. So the question that we might raise today is, is this an opportunity to rethink the business models in support of human rights? The individuals are gaining traction of their institution as established media outlets face mounting difficulties in reinventing themselves and preserving their relevance. Of course, even if this transformation is not necessarily negative, because social networks have allowed new voices to emerge that are less dominant, and it has given visibility to creators who produce originals and sometimes very relevant work. However, with lower entry barriers, the distinction between influence and expertise becomes blurred. And in many cases, creators with little journalistic background, like, you know, come in more attention, both economically and in terms of audience than professionals that are trained to verify and contextualize information. I’m not even mentioning the rise of Gen AI that will, of course, add more and more, you know, non-verified content to the already massive ocean of content that we have today. So, to summarize, facing this abundance of content, it becomes essential to imagine new economic models that are ethical, content-centric, and less dependent on advertising revenue, and designed to restore clarity and control to both users and producers. But there is some promising direction, of course. First, for like the traditional media outlets, calling that in opposition to social media. When it comes to that, what shall be suggested, we believe, is that we should push a voluntary, proprietary platform and a sovereign algorithm. What it means is that when it comes to preserving access to information, one strategy is to support or to develop independent platforms that blend algorithm, curation, and editorial supervision.

Raquel da Cruz Lima: Perfect, that’s so great and so powerful choosing to prioritize this idea to keep in mind. And also something else you mentioned, Hannah, I think it’s important not only to digital markets but to the whole media in general. I heard a lot yesterday and the day before about trust. And I think when you mentioned that the users have to know the logic, it must be explained to them what is there. At least in Brazil, that also applies to traditional media because often the positions of the traditional news outlets are not quite clear. They do not make also transparent to us users why you read from that perspective different stories. So I think transparency is also always a key issue in building trust and enabling freedom of expression and access to information. Right now we should have our fourth panelist, but he couldn’t join us. So I would open the floor now for any questions or interventions you’d like to make. We have around… 12 minutes so it’s actually quite good time to hear you online and also here you can talk from the mic or come to the round table and please introduce yourselves when you’re making your question.

Audience: It’s working yes can you it’s a silent section we can hear you i’m laura i’m in the youth program i’m from brazil too and i loved what we discussed here your panel was amazing but i wanted to know in in a competition scenario how the global south could increase the protagonism when we don’t have the infrastructure to have our own means like you have a monopolization from google from meta and we can start our own social media our own platforms we can have it but as you said google is the main used how do we get some protagonism in this thank you.

Raquel da Cruz Lima: You can go.

Audience: Thank you for this workshop it was really interesting i’m joão i’m from brazil too i’m in the youth delegation i would like to ask especially thinking on the dma in the european union we see some changes for example in the app store in the ios in general like there’s alternative marketplaces and when we look at the european union we see alternatives are created but i would like to ask how How to overcome, like, obstacles regarding incentives to users, because although alternatives might be available, like, in opposition to big techs, how can incentives to use big tech services can be diminished or overcome in a context where it’s sometimes easier to use big tech services or platforms, and although these regulations, especially in the European Union, try to deconstruct that and try to change the institutional arrangement, but how can in practice people feel incentivized to not use big tech platforms and services? Thank you.

Raquel da Cruz Lima: Thank you. You can go.

Jacques Peglinger: My name is Jacques Peglinger. I’m… A bit louder, please. My name… My name is… Thank you. Good. You can go. No? Yes, you can go, please. My name is Jacques Peglinger. I’m from business side, but I’m also teaching digital regulation at a Dutch university. So my question is primarily to the first speaker, who elaborated very well about the Digital Market Act from the EU, but there what we see is, of course, in Europe, these very fragmented local markets. The DMA basically addresses European-wide big platforms, but what about the local champions? And there the question then, how is Brazil handling local champions, and are there or they are just really nationwide platforms? Thank you.

Raquel da Cruz Lima: . I’m going to pass it over to Beatriz.

Audience: Thank you. Is it okay?

Raquel da Cruz Lima: Yes, please.

Audience: Hi, my name is Beatriz, I’m also from Brazil, but I’m currently a assistant professor in law at the University of Sussex in the UK and one of the things I teach is Internet law regulation, platform regulation. I’m interested to hear from the panel, what do you see in terms of the perspective of the government and the regulatory perspective as well, the need to empower organisations to join the conversation, human rights organisations, people involved in platform governance more broadly into this kind of more economic-oriented or market-oriented aspects of regulation, but I’m curious to hear from the panel, and maybe Bruno, but I know members of the panel have also been studying that. Let’s start with you and then, Ritja. Let’s take a look at informing the adjudicators on the market-oriented conversation, but I do believe that connecting platforms is really a engagement and more of a holistic conversation about how to regulate platforms, not only from this market or economic perspective, but also from the perspective of data protection. So, let’s start with you, Ritja. You mentioned data protection and the GDPR, and that is some kind of, at least in Europe, relevant case law about how considerations of data protection could inform and kind of delimit it, the bearing between what is kind of acceptable and what becomes anti-competitive behavior. Do you see the perspective of issues that have the advantage on equal status or on equitable status as well, or is it just a misconception of what methods are used to help to draw the boundaries in terms of loss of dominance in competition? Are there limits to the decision-making process? Thank you. And I think, I mean, more broadly, this would also help to kind of counter some narratives that we see that there’s a conflict between the two. When the digital markets kind of bill in the US was being proposed, there was a debate among some academics that breaking up kind of the digital public sphere into small players would be harder to control in terms of, I don’t know, hate speech or platform regulation models. So like this relationship between market structure and how to hold them accountable is not an easy one to tackle. But I would say that it’s important for regulators as well to have this perspective of how the things joined together. So, yeah, I’m curious to hear from you. How do you see that?

Raquel da Cruz Lima: Great. I think we don’t have any other questions. So I’ll just add to that before I give the floor back to our panelists. The first question I would add is for all of you. If you see any priorities in terms of regulations now to increase competition and also a market more respective to human rights. And the second question, I think, is more directed to Hannah and Bruno. Hannah mentioned a bit about advertising. And I would like to know if, from an European perspective, you see any changes already because we also have concentration in the market of advertisement. So do you see any changes in breaking a bit also the market of advertising and making it also more aligned to human rights? So I think we start with Bruno. We have around seven minutes for each of you to answer the questions and also make your closing remarks. So Bruno, you can start, please.

Bruno Carballa SmichoWSki: Thank you very much. Lots of good questions that I’m going to try to squeeze in answers to in a short time. Again, this will be pretty much my own personal opinion. and a commission official one. So perhaps with the first question about alternatives, my personal view is that there is no magic one-size-fits-all solution to this. And especially, let’s say, for countries like Brazil, I am myself Argentinian as well. So I understand, let’s say, where you’re coming from. So I think different ingredients can be added to alternatives. One is for certain more infrastructure-like parts of the digital world. Some public alternatives, like Brazil, I think it’s quite exemplary with PIX in this case, can counterbalance market power in a very strong way. But of course, these have to come with a proper regulation that makes them a real alternative, like it happened in the case of PIX, actually. We’re discussing that this time in a workshop in Rio with people from CAGI and Ministry of Finance. And when I asked them, why do you think it was a success, this public alternative? And they told me, well, basically because we forced all the companies, digital and non-digital, to be interoperable with PIX. Obviously, the technical solution had to be good, useful, practical. And I think the big tech are already very good at doing this. And the public sector could replicate it from a technical point of view. But it came up also with a good regulation that made it a real competitive constraint on any other service. So people can use whatever service they want, but the fact that this one exists that is interoperable with all of them, gives much less power to any platform that could have been imposed as the gatekeeper of digital payments. So that’s one part of the solution. I see in some areas, not in all, I don’t think you can do this for social media in a very effective way, for example, certain public infrastructure layers. So we can think of the same in terms of cloud, in terms of certain parts of the digital chain. Then, let’s say as the government itself, at least for critical things. I think open source alternatives are to be promoted. For instance, to me it should be clear that government offices should be using open source by default and this could be transmitted to public procurement, for example, requirements. And then for those things that I think from an economic point of view don’t make much sense to be, let’s say, publicly owned or with good regulation. I think that’s what we’re experimenting with. The DMA perhaps was the first one, but I see Brazil is making nice advances in that respect and regulation of all sorts. I’m talking not only about the economic one and here I think it’s a trial and error that is going on throughout the world. Perhaps the European Union was the first one, but we’re seeing the UK. A very similar legislation was already put in place and Australia is discussing the same and many other countries are following. So I think here we’ll have a nice laboratory of what works and what doesn’t. And in that way, perhaps being second movers, it’s an advantage for countries like Brazil, because they can already learn from the mistakes we will make for sure in the European Union. About local champions, I think you’re right. Indeed, the DMA explicitly targets, not by design, contrary to the DSA, Digital Services Act doesn’t require that the platforms are active in many local markets, in many countries, to be more specific. But obviously, given the thresholds of size, it ends up always being, and given the particularities of digital markets, it ends up being usually European-wide type of platforms or even international ones. That doesn’t mean there couldn’t be any fostering of local champions. I’ve heard there’s a parallel discussion going on, as you may have seen in the world, but also in the European Union about industrial policy. and Digital Industrial Policies. For example, for AI, there’s a battery of new legislation. The pipelines and strategic plans are already in about how you could foster those champions in the AI chain. So, I see those two as complementary types of regulation. Industrial policy on one side, and regulation of the existing big ones. Again, it is more of a practicality point of view. Why not at each market level? Because it takes a lot of time and effort to regulate. So, you’ve got to aim for those that have the higher impact, which end up being those that are very international. Then Beatriz’s question on regulation. Nice to see you again, Beatriz. So, about the dialogue between types of regulation. It’s actually something that is happening from the inside already. For example, between DMA and DSA. So, DSA is about systemic risks like misinformation. Some platforms are obviously regulated by both regulations. And I think, indeed, there’s a dialogue in two ways. One, in terms of procedures. For example, the DSA, in terms of procedures, is very similar to competition cases. Actually, colleagues from DigiComp are helping colleagues in DigiConnect in how to, from a procedure point of view, carry out these investigations, although the object is very different. It’s not economic, but about fundamental rights. The procedure is very similar. So, I think there’s a lot to learn from the longer experience of competition law. And vice versa, in terms of, say, in both ways. I foresee and already see, let’s say, from some colleagues’ work around the whole, in terms of the methods. For example, self-preferencing, which we mentioned already in two presentations, is a classic example. Because self-preferencing, let’s say, the way you could monitor this from an algorithmic point of view, could be enhanced by the techniques the colleagues are doing. the DSA are developing to monitor harm to users. So I see a cross-fertilization between those types of regulations in both methods and procedures. And then at the more, let’s say, political level, coming back to the first question, I think there’s a lot of everything to gain between different jurisdictions in learning from the different institutional designs. Obviously in the Commission, they ended up saying, DSA should be one legislation, DMA should be another. At the beginning, they were thinking of making actually the same big regulation. Then they said, let’s go for one that is economic and one that is fundamental rights, although they overlap in the types of platforms they are going to regulate. But that’s an institutional design choice. It could be the case that some other jurisdiction decides to put them on the same umbrella. It wouldn’t be necessarily bad. And I think there’s everything to gain in dialogue between jurisdictions about the institutional design and what worked, what didn’t work, what can we learn from previous mistakes and previous successes. Advertising, to finish on this, I think it’s still too soon to tell, because the decisions in advertising are still ongoing. These are highly technical matters and they require time, just like competition law. I mean, in my personal opinion, I think obviously it was too late in the sense that all the chain of advertising, as put in a very nice report by the CMA, when they did a market study on this, is highly concentrated in two firms. And that’s a problem. But I mean, at this stage, what we can only expect is to do good regulation, I think. And if anything, in terms of harm, let’s say they’re non-economic, I think here is where the DSA, the Digital Service Act, should kick in. In the sense that if those target advertisements, for instance, promote eating disorders to minors, because that’s a…

Raquel da Cruz Lima: Thank you, Bruno. Just a small footnote for everyone here who is not from Brazil, or so familiar with Brazil. Bruno mentioned an important experience from Brazil that is PIX, it’s a pain method, P-I-X. Also for our reporters not from Brazil, just to mention. So now, Camila, you have the floor, you have seven minutes.

Camila Leite Contri: Thank you. First on the question, uniting the questions both from Laura and from Juan. Happy to see you people interested in this issue, come join us in these discussions. I think you brought a good example on how network effects work in practice. So we are in platforms because our friends use these platforms. We are in these platforms because we have content created for us. How can we let go of this if everyone, sorry, I’m hearing myself. If everyone is there, so it seems like a chicken or egg problem. Laura was saying, how can we move to alternatives and we don’t have these alternatives, but everyone is on the other platforms. So yeah, this is challenging, but having alternatives can at least make people think more on the possibilities that they could have. Otherwise, we still continue in the situation that we are enclosed in this kind of platform, where there is a literacy, maybe digital literacy work as well that we have to do. But on the questions related to alternatives, I think there are some things that we can do right now and some alternatives that we can still promote in a longer term. The first thing that competition authorities could do is to have bolder theories of harm. And using this competition law jargon, theories of harm is basically how competition authorities judge the competition case. And breaking up companies. And as we see that they have an unmeasurable impact in our lives, maybe the solution is that they didn’t have to be that big. So that’s why I praise the solution presented by Article 19 on unbundling, for example, Host Creation Services. Another concrete example is that I mentioned the judgment on data protection and competition law in the EU. So in this Facebook judgment, it was a decision made by the Germany Competition Authority, and this case went to the European Court of Justice. And the judgment of the European Court of Justice was about if the competition authority in Germany, could interpret a data protection violation as a competition breach. And they gave good parameters on how authorities can consider a breach in another law inside their attribution. So in this case, the solution was that the competition authority would have to analyze if the data protection authority had a similar decision. If yes, they could not depart from it, but it could have their own competition law conclusions. If there isn’t a similar decision by data protection authority, they could consult them and seek cooperation. And if they didn’t present any objection, they could continue with their own case. So yes, we are thinking about data protection and competition. Why can’t we think this about human rights? Why can’t we understand the human rights impact and bring this into competition authorities? But this demands bold public servants. So Bruno, I know that you are in the European Commission, I’m really happy that we can share this panel and I see your availability to discuss this, to have these discussions with us and I hope other authorities, such as the Brazilian ones, have this same openness. And I do believe so.

Raquel da Cruz Lima: Thank you, Camila. Thank you Camila, you were so precise with your time. Now, Hannah Taieb, if you can make your answers and closing remarks, please.

Hannah Taieb: Sure. So first thing to jump on what Camila was saying, I think that we, technically speaking, from just an algorithm standpoint and a personalization standpoint, doing personalization as it’s done on social media, not in terms of advertising, but really in terms of user experience, meaning having a personalized feed on whatever social media that we are using. It’s absolutely possible to do it while respecting GDPR and still having a very good user experience. The fact that we… like that many uh big tech and big social media platform have integrated the fact that you need to use um anything any sensitive data meaning like um you know gender age whatever any demographic in order to have like a um a good user experience it’s actually not true it’s it relies on that for advertising perspective but not for user experience so i think that from from a private sector point of view i think that maybe regulation on that could be like a bit stronger and and it will still probably not harm um some part of the business especially if we are looking for a more virtuous way of monetizing media anyway um and i don’t think like relying highly on advertisements the way it is today of course it it brings other problems like such as the openness of platform because let’s let’s be realistic the fact that most of those platforms are free because they’re relying on on advertising so not not that subscription or shared participants is an ideal solution but just that it’s it’s a piss for reflection for sure then the question i think is also what are we looking for are we looking for informations are we looking for um on interacting with our friends and to and maybe the platforms where we are you know trying to have like the best experience combined in one is probably like not viable in the future and so for instance uh when talking about like brazil not having like um its own uh infrastructure and i think there is also layers between choosing um edible us or google for big media companies like i’m talking about global for instance like which is i’ll say a local champion right um in the The way Globo decides to push their information to their users on GloboPlay, they could rely on the Google algorithm, or they could rely on the proprietary algorithm, which is brought either by small vendors like us, but also an algorithm that they will develop themselves. But for that, of course, you need subvention, either for small, more ethical tech vendors, and also for the company itself, the media outlet itself. I think that there is also room to incentivize private companies to do more open source, because today, honestly, it’s very complicated to be able to create innovative open source solutions that scale for smaller vendors and vendors that care about ethics. To do that, I think there should be an incentive in terms of regulation or in terms of subvention. I don’t have the answers. I’m not a regulator myself, but for now, it’s actually just a matter of willing, and I think it’s not enough to encourage that. This is, I think, what could be interesting for innovation at scale. And then in terms of advertising, of course, the market consolidates, and I think we are still watching the decline of cookies and still looking forward to a new way of doing contextual advertising, meaning having also a proper way of… And technology will help that to explain also why an ad is suggested to the user from the same principle that why information is pushed to the user or why content is pushed to the user. But still, I think today it’s not enough. and as long as the model will be relying on advertising, it will be very complicated to fight against that kind of lobbying from the advertiser and without killing the market and the media market. I think we still have a lot of stuff to do before that. So hopefully, yes, I’m pro-stronger regulation on that part, I think.

Raquel da Cruz Lima: Thank you. I’ll give the floor back to Camila. If you can have one minute for each of you to make a closing remark. You can start, Camila.

Camila Leite Contri: Thank you. Just one thing that I wanted to react related to what Hannah said and Bruno is related to clouds. And in Brazil, we are still very dependent on big tech clouds. And this is also a matter of data sovereignty. So Brazil should focus on this and also pay attention on the revolving doors. Because, for example, in the health public sector in Brazil, we had an issue that the person that was working in the Brazilian government went to the cloud company and then came back to the government, which can bring some concerns as well on how we can create alternatives. So my final point would be having this kind of discussion in Brazil about funding some alternatives about digital public infrastructures, for example, and how we can create alternatives from small companies, but also from the public sector beyond regulation, of course. But it was a pleasure to be here. I’m very excited and happy to continue these kinds of discussions. Thank you so much.

Raquel da Cruz Lima: Thank you, Camila. Bruno, would you like to say some final words?

Bruno Carballa SmichoWSki: Not just that. I would like to repeat the words about the interest in dialogue across both disciplines and jurisdictions. I’m very happy to continue. Thank you very much, and thank you, everyone. Thank you everyone for your attention and articles and for the invitation. Thank you.

Raquel da Cruz Lima: Thank you. Hannah?

Hannah Taieb: Just to add something is maybe like forcing a little bit more on interoperability and algorithm pluralism I think would be like great in order to have like a better distribution for information and the technical solutions again are here. It’s not a matter of technicalities. It’s not a matter of open APIs or however you call it. It’s a matter of regulation and goodwilling for the big tech to do it. So if we have to count on that, I think, you know.

Raquel da Cruz Lima: Perfect. Brilliant. And just to finish, I would like to invite you all to access our policy paper by article 19. It’s called Taming the Big Tech. We have a Portuguese version for everyone. It comes from Brazil that is hosting our website. And as Camila briefly mentioned, we explore the idea of unbundling in social media the service of hosting and curation and that also would be possible having more interoperability and would help have incentives for users to leave the big platforms and also for business. There could be other models of business working with curation and offering other kinds of standards for how we interact with our friends, the content that we see, have more transparency. So you can check it out on our website. And thank you all so much. I think we can end with this idea of being a bit radical, a bit more bold. Maybe we can tackle the power of the big tech and have a more diverse Internet. Thank you all so much for joining us today.

Agreement points

Economic concentration directly impacts human rights and requires integrated regulatory approaches

Speakers

– Bruno Carballa SmichoWSki
– Camila Leite Contri
– Raquel da Cruz Lima

Arguments

DMA targets gatekeepers with economic objectives to reduce market power and prevent abuse

Digital platforms act as gatekeepers of human rights, with economic concentration directly impacting fundamental rights

States have constitutional duty to consider human rights in all regulatory decisions including competition matters

Summary

All speakers agree that economic power concentration in digital markets has direct implications for human rights, and that regulatory approaches should acknowledge this connection even when primarily focused on economic objectives

Topics

Human rights | Economic | Legal and regulatory

Technical solutions exist for ethical platform alternatives but require regulatory support

Speakers

– Bruno Carballa SmichoWSki
– Hannah Taieb

Arguments

Open source solutions and public procurement requirements can promote alternatives to big tech dominance

Private companies can develop ethical, controllable recommendation algorithms while maintaining good user experience

Technical solutions exist for personalization without sensitive data collection, but stronger regulation needed

Summary

Both speakers acknowledge that technical solutions for more ethical platform alternatives already exist, but successful implementation requires supportive regulatory frameworks and policy interventions

Topics

Economic | Legal and regulatory | Infrastructure

Interoperability is crucial for creating competitive alternatives to dominant platforms

Speakers

– Bruno Carballa SmichoWSki
– Hannah Taieb

Arguments

Brazil’s PIX payment system demonstrates successful public alternative through mandatory interoperability requirements

DMA creates new obligations for platforms including allowing business outside platforms, data access, app uninstallation, and interoperability

Interoperability and algorithm pluralism needed for better information distribution

Summary

Both speakers emphasize that mandatory interoperability requirements are essential for breaking platform monopolies and creating viable alternatives, as demonstrated by successful cases like Brazil’s PIX system

Topics

Economic | Infrastructure | Legal and regulatory

Cross-regulatory coordination between different legal frameworks is necessary

Speakers

– Bruno Carballa SmichoWSki
– Camila Leite Contri

Arguments

Cross-fertilization between DMA and DSA regulations through shared procedures and monitoring techniques

Human rights considerations should be integrated into competition law analysis and enforcement

Data protection violations can inform competition law enforcement as demonstrated in EU Facebook case

Summary

Both speakers advocate for breaking down regulatory silos and creating coordination mechanisms between different legal frameworks (competition, data protection, human rights) to address platform dominance comprehensively

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights | Economic

Similar viewpoints

Current regulatory approaches are insufficient and need to be more aggressive, while also ensuring broader participation from civil society in shaping these approaches

Speakers

– Camila Leite Contri
– Audience

Arguments

Competition authorities need bolder theories of harm and should consider breaking up dominant companies

Civil society organizations need empowerment to participate in market-oriented regulatory discussions

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Economic | Human rights

Platform opacity and algorithmic control enable manipulation of information and political discourse, demonstrating how technical design choices have political consequences

Speakers

– Hannah Taieb
– Camila Leite Contri

Arguments

Algorithm opacity and lack of contextual framing contributes to misinformation and undermines source visibility

Google’s political interference during Brazil’s fake news bill debate demonstrates how economic power translates to political influence

Topics

Human rights | Sociocultural | Economic

Public digital infrastructure can effectively compete with private platforms when properly designed and regulated, and this approach is particularly important for Global South development

Speakers

– Bruno Carballa SmichoWSki
– Audience

Arguments

Brazil’s PIX payment system demonstrates successful public alternative through mandatory interoperability requirements

Infrastructure development and funding for digital public alternatives essential for Global South countries

Topics

Development | Infrastructure | Economic

Unexpected consensus

Need for bolder regulatory enforcement including potential company breakups

Speakers

– Bruno Carballa SmichoWSki
– Camila Leite Contri

Arguments

Four enforcement cases already opened against Apple and Meta with significant fines imposed

Competition authorities need bolder theories of harm and should consider breaking up dominant companies

Explanation

Unexpected because Bruno represents the European Commission (regulatory authority) while Camila represents civil society, yet both acknowledge that current enforcement may need to be more aggressive, including considering company breakups

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Economic

Technical feasibility of ethical alternatives without compromising user experience

Speakers

– Hannah Taieb
– Bruno Carballa SmichoWSki

Arguments

Technical solutions exist for personalization without sensitive data collection, but stronger regulation needed

Open source solutions and public procurement requirements can promote alternatives to big tech dominance

Explanation

Unexpected consensus between a business representative and a regulatory researcher that ethical alternatives are technically viable and don’t require sacrificing user experience, challenging industry narratives about necessary trade-offs

Topics

Economic | Legal and regulatory | Human rights

Overall assessment

Summary

Strong consensus emerged around the interconnection between economic concentration and human rights impacts, the technical feasibility of ethical alternatives, the importance of interoperability, and the need for cross-regulatory coordination

Consensus level

High level of consensus with significant implications for policy development. The agreement between regulatory, business, and civil society perspectives suggests a mature understanding of platform governance challenges and potential solutions. This consensus could facilitate more integrated policy approaches that address both economic and human rights concerns simultaneously.

Different viewpoints

Primary regulatory approach – economic vs. human rights focus

Speakers

– Bruno Carballa SmichoWSki
– Camila Leite Contri
– Raquel da Cruz Lima

Arguments

DMA targets gatekeepers with economic objectives to reduce market power and prevent abuse

Digital platforms act as gatekeepers of human rights, with economic concentration directly impacting fundamental rights

States have constitutional duty to consider human rights in all regulatory decisions including competition matters

Summary

Bruno emphasizes DMA’s purely economic objectives with indirect human rights effects, while Camila and Raquel argue for direct integration of human rights considerations into competition law and regulatory frameworks.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights | Economic

Scope of regulatory intervention – targeted vs. comprehensive approach

Speakers

– Bruno Carballa SmichoWSki
– Camila Leite Contri

Arguments

DMA creates new obligations for platforms including allowing business outside platforms, data access, app uninstallation, and interoperability

Competition authorities need bolder theories of harm and should consider breaking up dominant companies

Summary

Bruno supports targeted regulatory obligations for gatekeepers, while Camila advocates for more aggressive intervention including company breakups as necessary solutions.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Economic

Role of public vs. private solutions in addressing platform dominance

Speakers

– Bruno Carballa SmichoWSki
– Hannah Taieb

Arguments

Brazil’s PIX payment system demonstrates successful public alternative through mandatory interoperability requirements

Private companies can develop ethical, controllable recommendation algorithms while maintaining good user experience

Summary

Bruno emphasizes public infrastructure solutions like PIX as effective alternatives, while Hannah focuses on private sector innovation and ethical algorithm development as viable market solutions.

Topics

Economic | Infrastructure | Alternative Platforms and Market Solutions

Unexpected differences

Effectiveness of current regulatory timeline and enforcement speed

Speakers

– Bruno Carballa SmichoWSki
– Camila Leite Contri

Arguments

Four enforcement cases already opened against Apple and Meta with significant fines imposed

Competition authorities need bolder theories of harm and should consider breaking up dominant companies

Explanation

Unexpectedly, Bruno presents DMA enforcement as relatively successful with four cases and significant fines in just two years, while Camila argues this approach is insufficient and calls for much more aggressive action including breakups. This suggests a fundamental disagreement about whether current regulatory pace is adequate.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Economic

Overall assessment

Summary

The main areas of disagreement center on regulatory philosophy (economic vs. human rights focus), intervention intensity (targeted obligations vs. company breakups), and solution approaches (public infrastructure vs. private innovation). Despite shared concerns about platform dominance, speakers differ significantly on implementation strategies.

Disagreement level

Moderate to high disagreement on methods and approaches, but strong consensus on the fundamental problem of platform dominance. The disagreements reflect different professional backgrounds and jurisdictional perspectives, which could complicate coordinated global responses but also provide diverse policy options for different contexts.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Current regulatory approaches are insufficient and need to be more aggressive, while also ensuring broader participation from civil society in shaping these approaches

Speakers

– Camila Leite Contri
– Audience

Arguments

Competition authorities need bolder theories of harm and should consider breaking up dominant companies

Civil society organizations need empowerment to participate in market-oriented regulatory discussions

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Economic | Human rights

Platform opacity and algorithmic control enable manipulation of information and political discourse, demonstrating how technical design choices have political consequences

Speakers

– Hannah Taieb
– Camila Leite Contri

Arguments

Algorithm opacity and lack of contextual framing contributes to misinformation and undermines source visibility

Google’s political interference during Brazil’s fake news bill debate demonstrates how economic power translates to political influence

Topics

Human rights | Sociocultural | Economic

Public digital infrastructure can effectively compete with private platforms when properly designed and regulated, and this approach is particularly important for Global South development

Speakers

– Bruno Carballa SmichoWSki
– Audience

Arguments

Brazil’s PIX payment system demonstrates successful public alternative through mandatory interoperability requirements

Infrastructure development and funding for digital public alternatives essential for Global South countries

Topics

Development | Infrastructure | Economic

Key takeaways

Economic concentration in digital markets directly impacts human rights, particularly freedom of expression and access to information

The EU’s Digital Markets Act (DMA) provides a regulatory model that other jurisdictions like Brazil can adapt, focusing on preventing gatekeeper platforms from abusing their market power

Technical solutions exist for ethical algorithms and personalization without extensive data collection, but stronger regulation and incentives are needed to implement them

Public alternatives like Brazil’s PIX payment system can successfully challenge big tech dominance when combined with mandatory interoperability requirements

Cross-disciplinary dialogue between competition law, human rights, and technology experts is essential for effective platform governance

Traditional media faces economic pressures while algorithm-driven platforms concentrate information distribution, requiring new business models that prioritize transparency and user control

Resolutions and action items

Civil society organizations should learn market language and engage more actively in competition law discussions

Competition authorities should adopt bolder theories of harm and consider breaking up dominant companies

Governments should promote open source alternatives through public procurement requirements

Brazil should focus on developing digital public infrastructure and cloud alternatives to reduce dependency on big tech

Regulators should integrate human rights considerations into competition law analysis and enforcement

Stronger regulation needed to require algorithmic transparency and interoperability

Article 19’s policy paper ‘Taming the Big Tech’ should be consulted for unbundling solutions for social media platforms

Unresolved issues

How to overcome network effects that keep users on dominant platforms despite availability of alternatives

How Global South countries can develop technological infrastructure to compete with established gatekeepers

What specific incentive structures would effectively encourage users to adopt alternative platforms

How to balance the need for platform regulation with concerns about fragmenting the digital public sphere

What institutional design works best – separate regulations for economic and human rights issues versus integrated approaches

How to address the revolving door problem between government and big tech companies

What funding mechanisms can support ethical tech vendors and open source solutions at scale

Suggested compromises

Jurisdictional learning approach where countries can be ‘second movers’ and learn from EU’s DMA implementation mistakes and successes

Layered approach to alternatives – public infrastructure for some services, open source for government use, and regulation for private markets

Cross-fertilization between different regulatory frameworks (DMA and DSA) sharing procedures and monitoring techniques while maintaining distinct objectives

Cooperation between data protection and competition authorities to address overlapping concerns without conflicting decisions

Supporting both public alternatives and private ethical tech vendors rather than choosing one approach exclusively

Contextual advertising models that provide transparency about ad targeting while maintaining media funding mechanisms

We currently have a society that is tech-mediated, our citizenship is tech-mediated… in Brazil we still have this zero rating practices, in which people that use prepaid mobile data… they mostly use the platform, the applications that don’t spend their mobile cap. So, we currently have people that have, for example, per month, four gigabytes, and WhatsApp, Facebook, and TikTok don’t spend internet, so why would someone have an incentive to use another platform, and how this is important to how the debate is developed on how people express themselves.

Speaker

Camila Leite Contri

Reason

This comment brilliantly connects economic inequality to digital rights violations, showing how market structures create barriers to free expression for lower-income populations. It demonstrates how seemingly neutral business practices (zero rating) actually entrench platform monopolies and limit democratic discourse.

Impact

This shifted the discussion from abstract regulatory concepts to concrete examples of how economic concentration affects human rights in practice. It grounded the theoretical framework in real-world inequality and influenced subsequent discussions about alternatives and infrastructure needs in the Global South.

During the week of the votation of the Brazilian DSA… Google put in the main website… ‘how can the bill, the fake news bill can worsen your internet?’… And when would you search for a fake news bill? The first link that would appear would be a sponsored link by Google saying no to censorship bill. So how can we have a free space of debating when the… basically the only search platform that people use in practice put this and change the whole debate.

Speaker

Camila Leite Contri

Reason

This example powerfully illustrates how economic dominance translates into political power, showing concrete evidence of how platforms can manipulate democratic processes. It demonstrates the concept of ‘political self-preferencing’ – extending the DMA’s economic self-preferencing rules into the political sphere.

Impact

This comment introduced a new dimension to the discussion by showing how competition law violations can directly undermine democratic processes. It elevated the conversation from market efficiency concerns to fundamental questions about democracy and political manipulation, influencing how other panelists framed the urgency of regulation.

I always felt kind of isolated in both fields, both in competition law, where you’re talking about human rights in the digital sphere, and both in civil society, in the human rights side, talking within the language of market… monopoly competition issues are key to human rights and we should analyze them together.

Speaker

Camila Leite Contri

Reason

This meta-commentary on the artificial separation between competition law and human rights advocacy identified a crucial structural problem in how these issues are typically addressed. It challenged the siloed approach that weakens both fields.

Impact

This comment set the tone for the entire discussion by explicitly calling for interdisciplinary dialogue. It validated the workshop’s premise and encouraged other participants to think beyond their traditional disciplinary boundaries, leading to more integrated analysis throughout the session.

The way personalization is done… largely by collecting private data with no or little regard for actual transparency or contextual understanding… as earlier generations were encountering information with very well-defined context in environments such as newspapers… today, many young users, the only information they encounter comes through feeds, where logic is invisible and intrusive.

Speaker

Hannah Taieb

Reason

This insight connected the loss of editorial context to the rise of algorithmic curation, showing how the shift from traditional media to platform-mediated information fundamentally changes how citizens engage with information and democracy.

Impact

This comment deepened the discussion by introducing the concept of ‘contextual framing’ as a democratic necessity. It influenced the conversation toward solutions focused on transparency and alternative business models, and connected technical algorithmic issues to broader questions about informed citizenship.

PIX… can counterbalance market power in a very strong way. But of course, these have to come with a proper regulation that makes them a real alternative… we forced all the companies, digital and non-digital, to be interoperable with PIX.

Speaker

Bruno Carballa SmichoWSki

Reason

This example provided a concrete model for how public digital infrastructure can successfully challenge private platform dominance, showing that alternatives are possible when combined with smart regulation requiring interoperability.

Impact

This comment shifted the discussion from purely regulatory approaches to hybrid public-private solutions. It gave concrete hope to participants from the Global South who were asking about alternatives to Big Tech dominance, and influenced the conversation toward practical policy solutions rather than just theoretical frameworks.

Why can’t we understand the human rights impact and bring this into competition authorities? But this demands bold public servants… I hope other authorities, such as the Brazilian ones, have this same openness.

Speaker

Camila Leite Contri

Reason

This direct challenge to regulatory authorities to expand their mandate and consider human rights impacts in competition cases was both a call to action and a recognition that institutional change requires individual courage within bureaucratic systems.

Impact

This comment personalized the regulatory challenge and created a direct dialogue between civil society and regulatory officials (Bruno). It moved the discussion from abstract policy to the human agency required for institutional change, and set up a framework for ongoing collaboration between different stakeholder groups.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally shaped the discussion by breaking down artificial barriers between economic and human rights analysis. Camila’s interventions were particularly transformative, providing concrete examples that grounded theoretical concepts in lived experience and democratic practice. Her comments about zero-rating and Google’s political interference demonstrated how market concentration directly undermines human rights, while her call for interdisciplinary dialogue set the collaborative tone for the entire session. Hannah’s insights about algorithmic curation and contextual framing added crucial technical depth, showing how business model changes could support democratic values. Bruno’s PIX example provided hope and practical direction for Global South participants. Together, these comments created a conversation that was both analytically rigorous and practically oriented, successfully bridging the gap between competition law, human rights advocacy, and technical innovation. The discussion evolved from separate disciplinary perspectives to an integrated framework for understanding digital platform power as fundamentally both an economic and democratic challenge.

Should generative AI be included under a new category in the DMA or does it fit into existing categories like search engines?

Speaker

Bruno Carballa SmichoWSki

Explanation

This is an ongoing discussion about how to regulate emerging AI technologies within the existing DMA framework, which is crucial for determining regulatory scope and enforcement.

How can the Global South increase protagonism in competition scenarios when lacking infrastructure to create alternatives to dominant platforms?

Speaker

Laura (audience member from Brazil)

Explanation

This addresses the fundamental challenge of developing competitive alternatives in regions with limited technological infrastructure and resources.

How can incentives to use big tech services be diminished when alternatives are available but big tech platforms remain easier to use?

Speaker

João (audience member from Brazil)

Explanation

This explores the practical challenge of user adoption of alternatives despite regulatory changes that create more options.

How is Brazil handling local champions, and are there nationwide platforms that could be considered local champions?

Speaker

Jacques Peglinger

Explanation

This examines how competition policy addresses domestic market leaders versus international platforms, which is important for understanding comprehensive market regulation.

How can human rights organizations be empowered to join economic-oriented regulatory conversations about platform governance?

Speaker

Beatriz (University of Sussex)

Explanation

This addresses the need for interdisciplinary collaboration between human rights advocates and competition/market regulators for more holistic platform governance.

What are the priorities in terms of regulations to increase competition and create markets more respectful of human rights?

Speaker

Raquel da Cruz Lima

Explanation

This seeks to identify the most important regulatory interventions needed to achieve both competitive markets and human rights protection.

Are there changes in breaking up the advertising market concentration and making it more aligned with human rights?

Speaker

Raquel da Cruz Lima

Explanation

This examines whether regulatory efforts are successfully addressing the concentrated advertising market dominated by major platforms.

How can competition authorities develop bolder theories of harm to address the unmeasurable impact of big tech on society?

Speaker

Camila Leite Contri

Explanation

This explores how competition law enforcement could be strengthened to better address the broader societal impacts of platform dominance beyond traditional economic harms.

How can Brazil focus on data sovereignty and address concerns about revolving doors between government and big tech cloud companies?

Speaker

Camila Leite Contri

Explanation

This addresses the need to examine conflicts of interest and dependency issues in critical digital infrastructure decisions.

How can digital public infrastructures be funded and alternatives created from both small companies and the public sector?

Speaker

Camila Leite Contri

Explanation

This explores practical mechanisms for developing competitive alternatives through public investment and support for smaller market players.

Summary

This discussion presents a historical overview of Norway’s pioneering role in Internet development and its vision for the future, delivered as an opening session at the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). Host Adelie Dorseuil guides five Norwegian Internet experts through the country’s journey from establishing one of the world’s first Internet connections via ARPANET in 1973 to becoming a global leader in digital innovation. Harald Alvestrand explains how Norway’s early adoption of Internet technology was driven by the cultural desire to connect people and solve problems collaboratively, particularly through the university network UNINET in 1993. Kristin Braa describes how Internet technology revolutionized healthcare systems in the Global South, starting with post-apartheid South Africa and eventually scaling to 80 countries through mobile Internet and open-source platforms. Josef Noll discusses the Basic Internet Foundation’s “Walk on the Internet” initiative, which aims to provide affordable Internet access to underserved communities, particularly in Africa where 75% of people still lack mobile broadband access. Kjetil Kjernsmo presents a more critical perspective, arguing that while Internet technology has enabled remarkable innovation, it has also created threats to democracy and requires new institutions with democratic mandates rather than purely commercial ones. Linda Firveld emphasizes that Internet access has become essential infrastructure in Norway, with near 100% coverage making it the fourth pillar of household utilities alongside electricity and water. The discussion concludes with each expert offering a single word representing the future focus: “connected,” “unite,” “make it happen,” “digital commons,” and “democracy.” This session serves as both a celebration of Norway’s Internet heritage and a call to action for creating more inclusive, democratic digital futures globally.

Keypoints

**Major Discussion Points:**

– **Norway’s pioneering role in Internet history** – The discussion traces Norway’s early adoption and contributions to Internet technology, from the first ARPANET connection in 1973 to becoming the first country to divert all traffic through the Internet in 2022

– **Global scaling and accessibility of Internet technology** – Speakers discussed how Internet technology has revolutionized connectivity in the Global South, particularly through mobile Internet adoption in Africa and the development of health information systems across 80+ countries

– **Inclusive Internet access models** – The conversation addressed the challenge that 75% of people in sub-Saharan Africa still don’t use mobile broadband due to cost, and explored innovative models like “The Walk on the Internet” initiative to make connectivity more accessible

– **Democracy and institutional challenges in the digital age** – Discussion of how current technology has created “cracks in the fabric of democracy” and the need for new institutions with democratic mandates rather than purely commercial ones to govern social media and digital infrastructure

– **Future vision for Internet governance and digital commons** – Speakers shared their vision for the future, emphasizing the need for digital commons, democratic institutions, and continued global connectivity as foundational elements

**Overall Purpose:**

The discussion served as an opening session for the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) 2025, using Norway’s Internet history as a framework to introduce key themes and challenges in global Internet governance. The speakers aimed to set the stage for conference discussions by highlighting both technological achievements and ongoing challenges in making the Internet accessible and democratic worldwide.

**Overall Tone:**

The tone was consistently optimistic and forward-looking throughout the conversation. It began with pride and celebration of Norwegian technological achievements, maintained an enthusiastic and collaborative spirit when discussing global initiatives, and concluded with hopeful calls to action for the future. The speakers demonstrated expertise while remaining accessible, and the moderator maintained an engaging, informative presentation style that effectively transitioned the audience from this historical overview into the main conference proceedings.

Speakers

– **Adelie Dorseuil**: Moderator/Host of the Open Stage session at IGF

– **Harald Alvestrand**: Internet expert with 40 years of experience, former chair of the IETF, played important role in UNINET (university networks)

– **Kristin Braa**: Expert involved in health information systems development, worked on post-apartheid health sector reconstruction project starting in 1994, involved in scaling health platforms globally

– **Josef Noll**: Associated with Basic Internet Foundation, works on inclusive internet connectivity models, involved in “The Walk on the Internet” initiative

– **Kjetil Kjernsmo**: Known as “Dr. Internet Enthusiast,” editor of the Solid Specification (Tim Berners-Lee’s project), expert in social and web technologies

– **Linda Firveld**: Leader of a tech company working with broadband providers, expert in Wi-Fi and broadband access

Additional speakers:

None identified beyond the provided speakers names list.

# Norway’s Internet Journey: From Pioneer to Global Leader – A Discussion Summary

## Introduction and Context

This opening session at the Internet Governance Forum featured five Norwegian Internet experts discussing the nation’s journey from early Internet adoption to digital leadership. Moderated by Adelie Dorseuil, the panel included Harald Alvestrand (Internet veteran and former IETF chair), Kristin Braa (health information systems specialist), Josef Noll (Basic Internet Foundation), Kjetil Kjernsmo (“Dr. Internet Enthusiast” and Solid Specification editor), and Linda Firveld (broadband infrastructure specialist).

## Norway’s Internet History

### Early Adoption Timeline

Adelie Dorseuil outlined Norway’s pioneering Internet milestones: the first ARPANET connection in 1973, Norwegian TDMA technology becoming the foundation for GSM in 1986, development of the Opera browser in the early 1990s (still the leading browser in Africa), and presenting the Winter Olympics online in 1993-1994. Norway became the first country to transition all traffic through the Internet by 2022, supported by near 100% Internet coverage.

### Cultural Foundation for Success

Harald Alvestrand explained that Norwegian universities drove early adoption through the UNINET network, reflecting cultural values that aligned with Internet principles. “The Internet culture aligns with Norwegian values of interconnection and people-level problem solving,” he observed, suggesting Norway’s success was fundamentally cultural rather than merely technological.

## Global Impact and Development

### Health Systems Revolution

Kristin Braa demonstrated the Internet’s transformative impact in developing regions through health information systems. Beginning with post-apartheid South Africa’s health sector reconstruction in 1994, her work with the DHIS2 platform scaled to over 80 countries. “The Internet revolutionised the Global South through health information systems,” she explained, noting that after 2010, mobile Internet enabled countries to “leapfrog the fixed net, totally no fixed net, no fixed phone, only mobile Internet.”

### Persistent Access Barriers

Josef Noll highlighted ongoing challenges, pointing out that “75% of people in sub-Saharan Africa still don’t use mobile broadband due to cost.” He questioned whether current models are truly inclusive and proposed a “road model” where “digital infrastructure should follow a road model where basic connectivity enables free access for digital pedestrians and cyclists.”

## Infrastructure and Democratic Governance

### Internet as Essential Infrastructure

Linda Firveld described “Internet and home Wi-Fi as the fourth pillar of infrastructure alongside electricity and water,” noting that people now expect connectivity to “just work.” She observed the dramatic increase in connected devices in Norwegian homes and anticipated “a service economy as the fifth infrastructure pillar.”

### Technology and Democratic Challenges

Kjetil Kjernsmo introduced critical concerns about technology’s impact on democracy, arguing that “current technology has created cracks in the fabric of democracy due to lack of proper institutional development.” He referenced Norway’s 2004 constitutional change requiring authorities to “create conditions that facilitate open and enlightened public discourse,” but identified a “sin of omission” that “the state did not immediately realise that this means we need to build new institutions.”

Kjernsmo argued that social media platforms “function as infrastructure for public discourse, relationships, and commerce requiring democratic oversight” and called for “institutions that develop technology with a democratic mandate rather than just a commercial one.”

## Key Themes and Perspectives

The discussion revealed both consensus and tension among speakers. All agreed on the importance of universal access and technology serving democratic purposes, but differed in their assessments of current progress. While Braa emphasized successful scaling in health systems, Noll highlighted persistent cost barriers. Alvestrand’s optimistic view of Internet culture contrasted with Kjernsmo’s concerns about democratic institutions.

Harald Alvestrand emphasized the need for “investment in growing the next generation of Internet leaders beyond the first generation,” while Kjernsmo focused on creating “open global digital common space ecosystems” as alternatives to commercial platforms.

## Future Vision

The session concluded with speakers offering words for the future, though their responses were cut short in the recording. The discussion successfully used Norway’s experience to introduce key themes in global Internet governance: the tension between technological achievement and persistent inequalities, the challenge of democratic governance in digital spaces, and the need for new institutional approaches.

The conversation demonstrated that while significant progress has been made in Internet development, fundamental challenges remain in ensuring inclusive access and democratic governance of digital infrastructure and platforms.

Adelie Dorseuil: Good morning, and welcome to Open Stage here at IGF, and for many of you, welcome to Norway. I would like to take you as a sort of a teaser for the conference to a little travel back in time. Please come along to a quick history of the Internet from a Norwegian perspective. With me, I’ve invited five experts who were part of the Norwegian Internet history so they could share some insight. Because one thing you need to know about Norwegians is that we tend to be early adopters of things. Like that includes electric cars, AI, sushi, and also the Internet. The very first Internet connection in Norway was already in 1973 through the then ARPANET that was Internet’s first experiment. This was ten years before what many considered to be the birthday of the Internet in 1983. It happened in a building affectionately called The Basement, Kjeller in Norwegian. I highly recommend that you join the tour of Kjeller on Tuesday and Thursday at 5 p.m. Another thing about Norway, besides being early adopters, is that we like remote places. Very remote places. Like Svalbard. Anybody heard about it? 3,000 people, 3,000 polar bears. But yeah, in 1974, what they really needed was a really early satellite connection. We weren’t just early adopters. We were also active contributors. In 1986, the Norwegian model of TDMA, narrow band TDMA, performed better than the other available technology. And it became the basis for the GSM system, which was established as a European effort. In 1993, one of the leading fields for early use of Internet standards was universities, with our very own network, UNINET. Harald, you played an important role in UNINET. Can you tell us what drove the university to adopt the use of the Internet? What was the motivation?

Harald Alvestrand: So, it’s been a while. I found out I’ve been working with the Internet for 40 years now, since before the mobile phone system existed. That’s kind of strange. So part of it was spent at UNINET, connecting the university networks. Part of it was spent as being chair of the ITF. And it’s been a continuous journey, where I’ve encountered a lot of people. And what they have in common is the desire to connect, the desire to enable people to communicate with each other, so that the Internet should be for everyone. So this fits very well with the Norwegian culture, because the Norwegian culture is all about interconnecting, about solving people, solving problems at the people level, getting the people who can really solve the problem to talk to each other. And thus the Internet became so important for the community. But engaging takes time. I’ve been privileged to work for this Internet thing for 40 years, to various employers. And in the future, we have to also remember to invest, to grow the people who will take over from the first generation to be on the Internet.

Adelie Dorseuil: Thank you. The year after, in 1993, 1994, we developed the first web browser for mobile phone, the Opera browser, which is still the leading browser in Africa. We also presented the Winter Olympics online and established a wide-reaching health information system platform. Kristin, you were a part of this journey. Can you tell us about ensuring a successful scale-up?

Kristin Braa: So this is not really about Norway, but it’s about Global South. Internet has been a revolution for the Global South, especially when it comes to scaling. But it all started in 1994 as a post-apartheid project. It started as an action research project, reconstructing health sector after apartheid. After having 14 Department of Health, all the data coming up to the National, then of course it was a revolution to get access to your data for decisions in health at the district level. That’s why the DHS too. So then we could say we have been traveling through geography and technology, starting with floppy disks, USB sticks, attachment of emails, to web, mobile Internet. And when the cable came through Africa, building up through Africa, then the whole Africa was then able to utilize mobile Internet on the fly. So that, of course, was extremely important for scaling. So being able to utilize and leapfrog the fixed net, totally no fixed net, no fixed phone, only mobile Internet. So then we could be able to scale in Kenya as the first sub-Saharan Africa, totally national scale health information system, reaching out to all the districts in the whole Kenya. That was a revolution in 2010. And then aspired through this, coordinated from Universal also, this digital open source health platform, becoming a platform, utilizing all the technology in order to be able to scale. That inspired Ghana, Tanzania, the rest of East Africa, and then also to India. So ending up to being 80 countries using a national health information system, but however for the NGOs and MSF and the Red Cross and all, it’s 130 countries that are using DHS2 as a system. Stop.

Adelie Dorseuil: And from then on, we kept on going. We even caught a world record along the way in 1999. We also participated in the development of portable hardware in 2005. But yet another thing to know about Norway is that we like to share, especially something as powerful as the Internet. And in 2014, the Basic Internet Foundation was created. Josef, what can you tell us about their initiative called The Walk on the Internet?

Josef Noll: Thanks so much, Adelie. Despite what Christian said, we still have 75% of people in Africa, south of Sahara who don’t use mobile broadband because it’s too expensive. So we should ask ourselves, are the models which we are using, inclusive models, are the models there to get everyone included? And that’s what we asked us to first solve, can we go out where nobody believes that you can connect? Yes, we can connect. And then the second step was, how can we ensure that everyone is with us? And that’s where we adopted the model of the road, of saying that, well, I need someone building a road, but once the road is built, digital pedestrians and digital cyclists can use the road for free. And those of you who know what these shoes are made of, they are from my friends from Kenya, from the Maasai. After we connected them, they gave me these old tires. And those tires are the tires which are now the shoes for The Walk on the Internet. Thanks.

Adelie Dorseuil: Thank you. From then on, we kept going and started to look for places that were as remote as Svalbard, but with fewer polar bears. And like the Maasai village of Silila in Africa, this was all part of a broader futuristic vision that we hope to bring here today to IGF. Kjetil, I’ve been told your nickname is Dr. Internet Enthusiast. What is your enthusiastic vision for the future? What do you think we should discuss here at IGF?

Kjetil Kjernsmo: Right, so as someone who turned 20 the year that the web took off, I fall into the category that Douglas Adams said that feels that anything that gets invented before you turn 30 is incredibly exciting and creative, and with any luck, you can make a career out of it. And I did. I got very early on involved in social and web technologies, and more recently I was the editor of the Solid Specification, Tim Berners-Lee’s main project. But what we have today is not what I grew up to love. Most seriously, the technology has opened cracks in the fabric of democracy. This was not inevitable. It happened because some powerful men didn’t have a clue on how to build successful societies, but it can be made really good. Here, enter a key Norwegian innovation. In 2004, the Norwegian constitution was changed to include that the authorities of the state shall create conditions that facilitate open and enlightened public discourse. Unfortunately, there was a sin of omission that the state did not immediately realize that this means that we need to build new institutions. Institutions that develop technology with a democratic mandate rather than just a commercial one, and it has to happen in open global digital common space ecosystems. Because social media is infrastructure, not only for public discourse, but it underpins most of our social activities, like our relationships, our collaboration, our commerce. So my vision for the future is to bring this together. But the key innovation is that we need to build these new institutions, and that is what I love to discuss.

Adelie Dorseuil: Thank you so much. Talking about the future and futuristic endeavors, we can’t forget Norway’s contribution to the search for water on Mars with the ground-penetrating Rimfax radar in 2021. And in 2022, we were ready to let go of the fixed telephony network, and Norway became the first country in the world to divert all traffic through the Internet, a move that we wish upon the rest of the world. Linda, you’re the leader of a tech company working with broadband providers. Why is Internet access through Wi-Fi and broadband important for everyone?

Linda Firveld: Well, thank you for the question. When you look at Norway in 2022 and today, actually, we are close to 100% coverage, which is quite unique. Also, what we see is that Internet and home Wi-Fi is to be considered as the fourth pillar of infrastructure, meaning it’s a household utility. People just expect this to just work just as electricity and water. We also see more connected things than ever in homes today in Norway. That’s quite amazing. I mean, just 10 years ago, it was maybe two or three. So it’s just evolving very rapidly. This means that we are ready for the next wave, what’s coming up now. I like to call it the fifth pillar of infrastructure, meaning it’s a service economy. So you were also, you know, touching that a little bit, and what you also mentioned is very important, which I think if we do it right, it will give empowerment to governments, businesses and people and make us ready for whatever we need to do in the future.

Adelie Dorseuil: Thank you so much. And now fast forward to the present in 2025. The Internet is a world of possibilities which we want to offer to the rest of the world. We’re excited to see the launch of the Affordable Access for Education, Health and Empowerment Act here in Lollestrom at IGF. And you get to be a part of it on Friday at 9am. We don’t know what the future has in store for us. And I was wondering if I could ask my guests to come up with one word, one topic that you think is the next big thing, the thing to watch here at IGF. We can start with you Harald. So in a world that seems to crack everywhere, stay connected. I can continue to say time to unite in these difficult times. And I’d follow up with make it happen. And my words would be digital commons. Mine is democracy. When it comes to the history of the Internet, in the great scheme of things, it’s only just begun. And I would like to invite you to keep on making history and join me in the opening of the IGF 2025. If you would please follow me to the plenary session so we can start the opening. Thank you so much for your attention. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Agreement points

Internet as essential infrastructure requiring universal access

Speakers

– Harald Alvestrand
– Josef Noll
– Linda Firveld

Arguments

Internet should be for everyone

75% of people in sub-Saharan Africa still don’t use mobile broadband due to cost, requiring inclusive connectivity models

Internet and home Wi-Fi represent the fourth pillar of infrastructure alongside electricity and water

Summary

All three speakers agree that Internet access should be universal and treated as essential infrastructure, though they approach it from different angles – Harald from a philosophical perspective, Josef from addressing barriers in developing countries, and Linda from infrastructure classification

Topics

Infrastructure | Development | Human rights

Technology should serve democratic and social purposes beyond commercial interests

Speakers

– Harald Alvestrand
– Kjetil Kjernsmo

Arguments

Internet culture aligns with Norwegian values of interconnection and people-level problem solving

Norway’s 2004 constitutional change requiring conditions for open public discourse needs new institutions with democratic mandates

Summary

Both speakers emphasize that Internet technology should prioritize democratic values and social connection over purely commercial objectives, with Harald focusing on cultural alignment and Kjetil on institutional reform

Topics

Human rights | Sociocultural | Legal and regulatory

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers focus on Internet’s transformative potential for developing countries and underserved populations, with Kristin demonstrating successful implementation in health systems and Josef proposing inclusive access models

Speakers

– Kristin Braa
– Josef Noll

Arguments

Internet revolutionized Global South through health information systems, scaling from post-apartheid South Africa to 80+ countries

Digital infrastructure should follow a ‘road model’ where basic connectivity enables free access for digital pedestrians and cyclists

Topics

Development | Infrastructure | Economic

Both speakers highlight Norway’s pioneering role in Internet infrastructure development and innovation, showcasing the country’s leadership from early adoption to complete digital transition

Speakers

– Adelie Dorseuil
– Linda Firveld

Arguments

Norway developed first mobile web browser (Opera) and presented Winter Olympics online in 1993-1994

Norway achieved near 100% Internet coverage and transitioned to all-Internet traffic by 2022

Topics

Infrastructure | Development

Unexpected consensus

Need for institutional reform in technology governance

Speakers

– Harald Alvestrand
– Kjetil Kjernsmo

Arguments

Investment needed in growing next generation of Internet leaders beyond the first generation

Social media functions as infrastructure for public discourse, relationships, and commerce requiring democratic oversight

Explanation

Despite coming from different backgrounds (technical Internet development vs. democratic technology governance), both speakers unexpectedly converge on the need for new institutional approaches – Harald focusing on leadership succession and Kjetil on democratic governance structures

Topics

Human rights | Sociocultural | Development

Infrastructure as foundation for broader social and economic transformation

Speakers

– Kristin Braa
– Linda Firveld

Arguments

Internet revolutionized Global South through health information systems, scaling from post-apartheid South Africa to 80+ countries

Connected devices in Norwegian homes increased dramatically, preparing for a service economy as the fifth infrastructure pillar

Explanation

Unexpectedly, both speakers from very different contexts (Global South health systems vs. Norwegian broadband industry) agree that Internet infrastructure enables fundamental societal transformation beyond mere connectivity

Topics

Infrastructure | Development | Economic

Overall assessment

Summary

The speakers demonstrate strong consensus on Internet as essential infrastructure, the need for inclusive access models, and technology serving democratic/social purposes. There’s also agreement on Norway’s pioneering role and the transformative potential of Internet for societal development.

Consensus level

High level of consensus with complementary perspectives rather than conflicting views. The speakers approach common themes from different angles (technical, policy, development, commercial) but arrive at similar conclusions about Internet’s fundamental importance and need for inclusive, democratically-governed access. This consensus suggests a mature understanding of Internet governance challenges and opportunities.

Different viewpoints

Approach to Internet access barriers in developing regions

Speakers

– Kristin Braa
– Josef Noll

Arguments

Internet revolutionized Global South through health information systems, scaling from post-apartheid South Africa to 80+ countries

75% of people in sub-Saharan Africa still don’t use mobile broadband due to cost, requiring inclusive connectivity models

Summary

Kristin emphasizes the revolutionary success of Internet scaling in the Global South through health systems, while Josef highlights that 75% still lack access due to cost barriers, suggesting current models are insufficient

Topics

Development | Infrastructure | Economic

Assessment of current Internet technology’s impact on society

Speakers

– Harald Alvestrand
– Kjetil Kjernsmo

Arguments

Internet culture aligns with Norwegian values of interconnection and people-level problem solving

Current technology has created cracks in democratic fabric due to lack of proper institutional development

Summary

Harald views Internet technology positively as aligning with Norwegian values of connection and problem-solving, while Kjetil sees current technology as damaging to democratic institutions

Topics

Sociocultural | Human rights

Unexpected differences

Optimism vs. concern about Internet’s societal impact

Speakers

– Harald Alvestrand
– Kjetil Kjernsmo

Arguments

Internet culture aligns with Norwegian values of interconnection and people-level problem solving

Current technology has created cracks in democratic fabric due to lack of proper institutional development

Explanation

Unexpected because both are Norwegian Internet pioneers, yet Harald maintains an optimistic view of Internet’s alignment with Norwegian values while Kjetil expresses serious concern about technology’s damage to democracy

Topics

Sociocultural | Human rights

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion shows moderate disagreement primarily around the effectiveness of current Internet models and technology’s impact on society, with speakers agreeing on goals but differing on approaches

Disagreement level

Low to moderate disagreement level. Most speakers share common goals of universal access and democratic values, but differ on assessment of current progress and methods to achieve objectives. This suggests healthy debate within a shared framework rather than fundamental ideological divisions.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers focus on Internet’s transformative potential for developing countries and underserved populations, with Kristin demonstrating successful implementation in health systems and Josef proposing inclusive access models

Speakers

– Kristin Braa
– Josef Noll

Arguments

Internet revolutionized Global South through health information systems, scaling from post-apartheid South Africa to 80+ countries

Digital infrastructure should follow a ‘road model’ where basic connectivity enables free access for digital pedestrians and cyclists

Topics

Development | Infrastructure | Economic

Both speakers highlight Norway’s pioneering role in Internet infrastructure development and innovation, showcasing the country’s leadership from early adoption to complete digital transition

Speakers

– Adelie Dorseuil
– Linda Firveld

Arguments

Norway developed first mobile web browser (Opera) and presented Winter Olympics online in 1993-1994

Norway achieved near 100% Internet coverage and transitioned to all-Internet traffic by 2022

Topics

Infrastructure | Development

Key takeaways

Norway has been a consistent early adopter and innovator in Internet technology, from the first ARPANET connection in 1973 to becoming the first country to transition all traffic through Internet by 2022

The Internet’s transformative power is most evident in the Global South, where it enabled leapfrogging of traditional infrastructure and scaling of critical services like healthcare across 80+ countries

Internet access should be treated as essential infrastructure (the ‘fourth pillar’ alongside electricity and water) and requires inclusive models to ensure universal access

Current Internet governance faces democratic challenges, with technology creating ‘cracks in the fabric of democracy’ due to inadequate institutional frameworks

The Norwegian model demonstrates that Internet development should align with cultural values of interconnection and people-level problem-solving

Investment in developing the next generation of Internet leaders is crucial for sustaining Internet development beyond the first generation of pioneers

Resolutions and action items

Launch of the Affordable Access for Education, Health and Empowerment Act scheduled for Friday at 9am during IGF

Tour of Kjeller (The Basement) facility recommended for Tuesday and Thursday at 5 p.m. to learn about Internet history

Need to build new institutions that develop technology with democratic mandates rather than just commercial ones

Requirement to create open global digital common space ecosystems for social media infrastructure

Unresolved issues

75% of people in sub-Saharan Africa still cannot access mobile broadband due to cost barriers

How to effectively implement the ‘road model’ for digital infrastructure to ensure free access for basic users

How to address the democratic governance gap in social media and Internet infrastructure

How to scale successful connectivity models from remote locations like Maasai villages to broader populations

How other countries can replicate Norway’s success in achieving near 100% Internet coverage

Suggested compromises

The ‘road model’ approach where infrastructure builders invest in connectivity while allowing free access for ‘digital pedestrians and cyclists’

Balancing commercial and democratic mandates in technology development through new institutional frameworks

But what we have today is not what I grew up to love. Most seriously, the technology has opened cracks in the fabric of democracy. This was not inevitable. It happened because some powerful men didn’t have a clue on how to build successful societies, but it can be made really good.

Speaker

Kjetil Kjernsmo

Reason

This comment is deeply insightful because it shifts the entire discussion from celebrating technological achievements to confronting the unintended consequences of internet development. It introduces a critical perspective that challenges the prevailing narrative of technological progress as inherently positive, and specifically identifies the threat to democratic institutions.

Impact

This comment fundamentally changed the tone of the discussion from celebratory to reflective and critical. It moved the conversation beyond technical achievements to examine the societal implications of internet development, setting up the framework for discussing solutions like democratic institutions and digital commons.

In 2004, the Norwegian constitution was changed to include that the authorities of the state shall create conditions that facilitate open and enlightened public discourse. Unfortunately, there was a sin of omission that the state did not immediately realize that this means that we need to build new institutions. Institutions that develop technology with a democratic mandate rather than just a commercial one.

Speaker

Kjetil Kjernsmo

Reason

This is a profound observation that connects constitutional principles to technological governance. It’s thought-provoking because it identifies a specific gap between democratic ideals and technological implementation, proposing that technology development should have democratic rather than purely commercial mandates.

Impact

This comment introduced the concept of institutional innovation as necessary for democratic technology governance. It provided a concrete example of how legal frameworks need to evolve to address technological challenges, influencing the discussion toward governance solutions.

So being able to utilize and leapfrog the fixed net, totally no fixed net, no fixed phone, only mobile Internet… That was a revolution in 2010.

Speaker

Kristin Braa

Reason

This comment is insightful because it illustrates how developing countries can bypass traditional infrastructure limitations through mobile technology. It demonstrates that technological advancement doesn’t always follow linear paths and that constraints can sometimes lead to innovative solutions.

Impact

This shifted the discussion from a Norway-centric perspective to a global one, showing how internet development can have different trajectories in different contexts. It introduced the concept of technological leapfrogging and expanded the conversation to include Global South perspectives.

Despite what Christian said, we still have 75% of people in Africa, south of Sahara who don’t use mobile broadband because it’s too expensive. So we should ask ourselves, are the models which we are using, inclusive models?

Speaker

Josef Noll

Reason

This comment is thought-provoking because it challenges the optimistic narrative about mobile internet adoption by highlighting persistent inequality. It forces a critical examination of whether current business models are truly serving universal access goals.

Impact

This comment grounded the discussion in current realities and introduced the critical question of inclusivity in internet access models. It led to the introduction of innovative approaches like ‘The Walk on the Internet’ and the road metaphor for digital infrastructure.

Internet and home Wi-Fi is to be considered as the fourth pillar of infrastructure, meaning it’s a household utility. People just expect this to just work just as electricity and water.

Speaker

Linda Firveld

Reason

This comment is insightful because it reframes internet access from a luxury or service to a fundamental utility, comparable to basic infrastructure needs. It suggests a fundamental shift in how society conceptualizes internet access.

Impact

This comment elevated the discussion about internet access to the level of basic human needs and infrastructure rights. It provided a framework for understanding why universal access is not just desirable but necessary, and set up the concept of a ‘fifth pillar’ representing the service economy.

Overall assessment

These key comments transformed what began as a celebratory historical overview of Norwegian internet achievements into a nuanced discussion about democracy, inequality, and the future of internet governance. Kjernsmo’s critical perspective on democracy was particularly pivotal, shifting the entire tone from triumphant to reflective. The comments collectively moved the discussion through three phases: celebration of technical achievements, recognition of persistent inequalities and democratic challenges, and finally toward solutions involving new institutions and inclusive models. The speakers built upon each other’s insights, creating a comprehensive narrative that connected local Norwegian innovations to global challenges and future governance needs.

How can we invest in and grow the people who will take over from the first generation of Internet pioneers?

Speaker

Harald Alvestrand

Explanation

This addresses the critical need for knowledge transfer and capacity building as the original Internet pioneers age out of active roles

How can we develop inclusive models that ensure everyone can access and afford mobile broadband, particularly in regions where 75% of people don’t use it due to cost?

Speaker

Josef Noll

Explanation

This highlights the ongoing digital divide issue and the need for sustainable, affordable connectivity solutions in underserved regions

How can we build new institutions that develop technology with a democratic mandate rather than just a commercial one?

Speaker

Kjetil Kjernsmo

Explanation

This addresses the need for governance structures that prioritize democratic values and public interest over purely commercial interests in technology development

How can we create open global digital common space ecosystems for social media infrastructure?

Speaker

Kjetil Kjernsmo

Explanation

This focuses on developing alternative models for social media that serve as public infrastructure rather than private commercial platforms

How can we address the cracks in democracy that technology has created?

Speaker

Kjetil Kjernsmo

Explanation

This addresses the urgent need to understand and mitigate the negative impacts of current technology implementations on democratic processes and institutions

How can we prepare for and implement the ‘fifth pillar of infrastructure’ – the service economy enabled by ubiquitous connectivity?

Speaker

Linda Firveld

Explanation

This explores the next phase of digital transformation where connectivity enables new forms of service delivery and economic models

Summary

This session at the Internet Governance Forum in Norway focused on leveraging the Internet for environment and health resilience, co-moderated by Jorn Erbguth and members of the Dynamic Coalition on Data-Driven Health Technologies. The discussion explored how digital technologies can enhance healthcare resilience while also introducing new vulnerabilities and risks of abuse.

Speakers emphasized that while Internet connectivity proved crucial during COVID-19 for telemedicine and remote healthcare services, total dependence on networks creates vulnerabilities to cyberattacks and system outages that can disrupt clinical decisions and supply chains. The session highlighted concerns about how large-scale health data collection and AI systems could perpetuate or create new inequities, using the example of funding disparities between breast cancer and prostate cancer research despite similar incidence and mortality rates.

Participants from developing regions, particularly the Caribbean and Africa, shared challenges including limited Internet access, high costs, natural disasters, cultural barriers, and dependence on external funding and expertise. They stressed the importance of digital literacy, community engagement, and culturally relevant solutions that integrate local languages and address affordability concerns.

Several speakers presented examples of successful digital health initiatives, including malaria modeling projects, air quality monitoring systems, and outbreak surveillance platforms. However, they emphasized that equity must be a design principle rather than an afterthought in developing these technologies.

The discussion concluded with calls for unified regulatory frameworks, multi-stakeholder collaboration, and a renewed digital social contract that prioritizes people and planet over profit. Participants agreed that while technology offers tremendous opportunities to improve healthcare and environmental resilience, careful governance is essential to manage risks and ensure equitable access to benefits.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Digital divide and accessibility challenges in healthcare technology**: Speakers from developing regions (Caribbean, Africa) highlighted significant barriers including limited internet access, high costs, lack of digital literacy, and cultural resistance to adopting digital health solutions.

– **Data quality, validity, and governance in health and environmental monitoring**: Discussion focused on ensuring the reliability of data collected through IoT devices and sensors for environmental health surveillance, emphasizing the need for standardized collection methods and unified regulatory frameworks.

– **AI’s dual role in healthcare – benefits versus risks**: Participants explored how AI can enhance healthcare delivery and environmental monitoring while raising concerns about algorithmic bias, transparency, and the potential for governments to misuse data for discriminatory resource allocation.

– **Integration of environmental and health data for climate resilience**: Speakers emphasized the WHO mandate that health issues are integral to climate change, discussing how internet-enabled systems can support early warning systems, disease surveillance, and resource allocation during environmental crises.

– **Balancing technological advancement with human-centered care**: The discussion addressed concerns about maintaining empathy and compassionate patient care while leveraging AI-driven healthcare solutions, with speakers noting that technology should complement rather than replace human connection.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to explore how internet technologies, data systems, and AI can be leveraged to build resilience in both environmental and health challenges, while addressing the risks and inequities these technologies may introduce. The session was part of the Internet Governance Forum’s Dynamic Coalition on Data-Driven Health Technologies.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a collaborative and constructive tone throughout, with speakers sharing practical experiences and challenges from diverse global perspectives. While acknowledging significant obstacles – particularly around digital divides and potential misuse of technology – the overall tone remained optimistic about technology’s potential to improve health and environmental outcomes. The conversation was academic yet accessible, with participants building on each other’s points and offering complementary perspectives rather than conflicting viewpoints.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **J Amado Espinosa L** – Veteran in medical informatics, founder of Medicist, key figure in digital health reform in Latin America

– **Yao Amevi A. Sossou** – Internet governance advocate and youth mobilizer from Benin, member of the We the Internet coalition

– **Audience** – Marcelo Fornasin from Oswaldo Cruz Foundation Brazil, researcher in public health

– **Jorn Erbguth** – Session co-moderator

– **Henrietta Ampofo** – Medical doctor with strong environmental and health advocacy background, former focal point of UNEP’s children and youth major group

– **Frederic Cohen** – Data-driven governance advocate with expertise in IGF and WSIS

– **June Parris** – Retired specialist nurse in primary care mental health, former MAG member at UN and Civicus, active ISOC and Civil Society health initiatives member from Barbados

– **Amali De Silva-Mitchell** – Founder of the Dynamic Coalition on Data-Driven Health Technologies, session co-moderator

– **Joao Rocha Gomes** – Online moderator, medical professional

– **Alessandro Berioni** – Medical doctor, chair of the Young Working Group of the World Federation of Public Health Associations

– **Houda Chihi** – Senior researcher in wireless and green communication from Tunisia, PhD in telecommunications

– **Jason Millar** – Environmental professional from Barbados

**Additional speakers:**

None identified beyond the provided speakers names list.

# Leveraging the Internet for Environment and Health Resilience: A Comprehensive Discussion Report

## Executive Summary

This session at the Internet Governance Forum in Norway examined the critical intersection of digital technologies, environmental health monitoring, and healthcare resilience. Co-moderated by Jorn Erbguth and members of the Dynamic Coalition on Data-Driven Health Technologies, the discussion brought together diverse stakeholders from across the globe to explore how internet-enabled systems can enhance public health whilst addressing the inherent risks and inequities these technologies may introduce.

The session opened with Amali De Silva-Mitchell’s call for “thinking globally and integrated,” emphasizing that the WHO has mandated health matters as an integral part of climate change issues. This framework set the stage for a comprehensive exploration of how digital technologies present both unprecedented opportunities and significant challenges for environmental health monitoring, disease surveillance, and healthcare delivery.

Jorn Erbguth introduced the central theme of internet connectivity as a “double-edged sword” in healthcare, providing specific examples of how the same technologies that enabled telemedicine during COVID-19 also created new vulnerabilities to cyber attacks that could disrupt clinical decisions and supply chains.

## Key Thematic Areas

### The Double-Edged Nature of Digital Health Technologies

Jorn Erbguth established the foundational framework for the discussion by highlighting how internet connectivity creates both opportunities and risks in healthcare. He noted that while digital technologies enabled crucial healthcare delivery during the pandemic, they simultaneously made healthcare systems vulnerable to cyber attacks that could affect clinical decisions and supply chains.

This duality was reinforced throughout the session, with speakers consistently acknowledging that digital health solutions offer transformative potential while introducing new forms of risk and inequality. The challenge, as articulated by multiple participants, lies in maximizing benefits while mitigating these inherent risks.

### Regional Perspectives on Digital Health Implementation

#### Caribbean Challenges and Opportunities

June Parris, a retired specialist nurse in primary care mental health and former MAG member from Barbados, provided detailed insights into Caribbean healthcare challenges. She emphasized that “we are in a developing world and we have all these problems… We have the natural disasters, we have sargassum weed” that create ongoing disruptions to healthcare delivery.

Jason Millar, speaking as an environmental professional about Caribbean challenges, articulated the constraints of external dependency: “Any funding agency that targets us for aid will usually make us an offer, but at the same time, that also will come with terms and conditions or a set of constraining factors that will limit the actual potential to maybe fully address an issue in a way that is fully beneficial for us.”

Millar provided specific examples of environmental health challenges facing Barbados, including Sahara dust affecting respiratory health, sargassum seaweed creating coastal health issues, Hurricane Beryl’s recent impacts, and agricultural pesticide concerns. These concrete examples illustrated how environmental and health challenges intersect in small island developing states.

#### African Perspectives on Data-Driven Health Solutions

Henrietta Ampofo, a medical doctor speaking from the AMNET conference in Dakar, presented practical examples of successful data integration in African contexts. She described malaria modeling projects that use climate data to predict disease patterns and allocate resources more effectively, demonstrating how environmental variables can be integrated into health planning to create more responsive healthcare systems.

Her examples showed that despite connectivity challenges, innovative approaches can overcome some infrastructure limitations and create effective data-driven health solutions even in resource-constrained environments.

### Digital Divide and Accessibility Barriers

Alessandro Berioni, chair of the Young Working Group of the World Federation of Public Health Associations, highlighted that “only two thirds of the global population are online and have access to internet and 2.6 billion are not achieving actually connection.” This statistic provided crucial context for understanding the scale of accessibility challenges facing digital health implementation.

The digital divide emerged as a universal challenge across all regions represented. June Parris noted that economic barriers make it difficult for Caribbean countries to keep up with developed nations’ health technology, while the cost of internet access and maintenance creates substantial barriers where healthcare systems already struggle with resource constraints.

### Trust, Cultural Barriers, and Community Engagement

Yao Amevi A. Sossou provided compelling research findings that challenged assumptions about technology adoption: “Most of the patients I interviewed during the research they didn’t trust on the solutions and even the doctors those that use the platform they confirmed that none of their patients are using the app.”

This insight revealed that technical solutions alone are insufficient without addressing fundamental trust issues. Sossou explained that patients often prefer self-medication over formal healthcare due to mistrust of healthcare systems, and this mistrust extends to digital health tools. The lack of awareness about available digital health solutions compounds these challenges.

June Parris acknowledged cultural resistance to change in island communities, emphasizing that healthcare professionals must create empathy with patients to build trust. She stressed that technology implementation requires careful attention to human relationships and cultural sensitivity.

### AI Integration and Algorithmic Bias Concerns

The role of artificial intelligence generated nuanced discussion about both opportunities and risks. Jorn Erbguth presented a thought-provoking warning: “AI can either propose optimal care or be used by governments or industry to triage healthcare according to criteria, quietly determining who receives high-cost therapies and who is excluded.” He emphasized that “these inequities will not be transparent.”

To illustrate this concern, Erbguth cited specific funding disparities: breast cancer research receives significantly more funding than prostate cancer research despite similar incidence and mortality rates, demonstrating how existing biases can be perpetuated or amplified through algorithmic systems.

Alessandro Berioni highlighted a fundamental structural problem: “The algorithms are mostly based on engagement drive. So they’re engagement-driven algorithms rather than value-driven algorithms.” He called for a renewed digital social contract to put people and planet before profit and engagement algorithms.

Interestingly, Erbguth also presented counterintuitive research findings: “Studies have shown that people tend to see more empathy in AI than in human doctors. Human doctors are often stressed under time pressure, and sometimes they don’t act with the empathy we would like them to act with.” This observation sparked discussion about how technology might complement rather than replace human care.

### Cyber Sustainability and Data Governance

Houda Chihi, a senior researcher in wireless and green communication from Tunisia with a PhD in telecommunications, introduced the innovative concept of “cyber sustainability” – combining cybersecurity practices with environmental protection. This approach recognizes that cybersecurity measures must be integrated with sustainability principles to create comprehensive protection for both data and environmental health.

Chihi emphasized the importance of testing and validation before deploying healthcare solutions, noting that the reliability of environmental health data is crucial for effective public health responses. She advocated for collaboration between technical communities, academia, and medical experts to ensure solutions meet both technical and clinical requirements.

### Environmental Health Monitoring and Technology Integration

Joao Rocha Gomes presented specific examples of internet-enabled environmental health monitoring, including air quality mapping initiatives and early warning systems for climate-related health threats. His presentation highlighted how IoT devices and sensors can monitor environmental factors affecting health, though he emphasized the need for proper validation and integration with existing health systems.

J Amado Espinosa L advocated for integrating environmental variables into personal health records, suggesting that individual health management should incorporate broader environmental context to enable more personalized and environmentally-informed healthcare delivery.

## Areas of Strong Consensus

### Universal Challenge of Digital Divide

Multiple speakers from different regions achieved strong consensus that the digital divide creates significant barriers to healthcare access. This consensus was particularly notable because it emerged from speakers representing different geographic regions and professional backgrounds, suggesting these challenges require coordinated global responses.

### Need for Human-Centered Approaches

Despite disagreements about AI’s role, speakers agreed that technology should complement rather than replace human empathy in healthcare. There was clear consensus that healthcare professionals must maintain empathy with patients while educating themselves about emerging technologies.

### Importance of Cultural Appropriateness

Speakers agreed that digital health solutions must be designed with community input, cultural considerations, and local context in mind. This consensus emphasized the need for locally integrated solutions rather than one-size-fits-all approaches.

## Key Areas of Disagreement

### Role of AI in Healthcare Empathy

An unexpected disagreement emerged regarding AI’s capacity for empathetic care. Jorn Erbguth suggested that studies show people perceive more empathy in AI than in stressed human doctors, while other speakers emphasized the irreplaceable importance of human empathy and genuine patient connection.

### Primary Implementation Barriers

Speakers showed different emphases regarding the primary barriers to digital health adoption. June Parris focused on economic and infrastructure barriers, Yao Sossou emphasized cultural mistrust and awareness issues, while Alessandro Berioni highlighted the global digital divide as the fundamental challenge.

### Governance Approaches

While speakers agreed on the need for better governance of digital health solutions, they disagreed on approaches. Some emphasized global frameworks, others focused on regional policies, while technical speakers emphasized the importance of testing and validation protocols.

## Critical Insights and Unresolved Issues

The discussion identified several critical unresolved issues requiring further attention. Establishing unified regulatory mechanisms for health data collection across different regions remains challenging, particularly given varying national priorities and regulatory frameworks.

The question of balancing AI-driven healthcare efficiency with essential human empathy requires ongoing exploration, especially as healthcare systems face increasing resource pressures.

Fundamental affordability barriers that make digital health solutions inaccessible to low-income populations need innovative solutions, including sustainable funding models that don’t come with restrictive external constraints.

## Q&A Highlights and Community Engagement

A particularly insightful question from IGF Ghana addressed how nurses can balance AI integration with maintaining empathy in patient care. This prompted detailed responses from multiple speakers about the complementary role of technology in healthcare delivery.

The interactive discussion revealed that successful digital health implementation requires moving beyond purely technical solutions to embrace community engagement and integrated governance frameworks that prioritize equity and sustainability.

## Recommendations and Next Steps

The session concluded with concrete action items. Participants were encouraged to join the Dynamic Coalition on Data-Driven Health Technologies and access published documents on the IGF homepage. An upcoming hackathon on “Shaping the Future of Health” was announced for July 2nd, with a global call for AI-powered social innovation ideas to be launched in late July.

Follow-up sessions were planned, including continued discussion at WSIS and the World Federation of Public Health Associations conference in Cape Town on September 26th.

## Conclusion

This comprehensive discussion revealed that leveraging the internet for environment and health resilience requires careful navigation of complex technical, social, and ethical challenges. The session demonstrated that while digital technologies offer unprecedented opportunities for environmental health monitoring and healthcare delivery, successful implementation requires addressing fundamental issues of equity, trust, cultural appropriateness, and governance.

The strong consensus around key challenges provides a foundation for collaborative action, while the unresolved issues around regulatory frameworks, sustainable funding, and algorithmic accountability require continued multi-stakeholder engagement. As participants work toward the renewed digital social contract advocated during the session, the insights provide valuable guidance for ensuring that internet-enabled health and environmental solutions truly serve the goal of building resilience for all, rather than perpetuating existing inequities or creating new forms of digital exclusion.

The path forward requires sustained collaboration between technical communities, healthcare professionals, policymakers, and communities to ensure that digital health innovations prioritize people and planet over profit, as emphasized throughout this thought-provoking discussion.

Jorn Erbguth: I guess we are live now. Welcome to this session, Leveraging the Internet in Environment and Health Resilience. And I would like to also welcome Amali, who will be co-moderating. She should be online here. Do we see her? Okay, here. Amali has founded the Dynamic Coalition on Data-Driven Health Technologies and we are proud to be able to moderate this session at the IGF in Norway. And so, be with us. We should now be able to see the next slide. Yes. So, this is our agenda. And Amali, maybe you would like to introduce the agenda?

Amali De Silva-Mitchell: Thank you, Jörn. I will actually pass the online moderation to Dr. Joao Gomes very quickly. But I just want to make a couple of points before this session starts. And I want everybody to think globally and integrated. And when you’re making policy decisions, please think as an integrated policymaking opportunity and especially governance frameworks and so forth. Just want to make this very simple point. The WHO has mandated that the health matters are integral part of climate change issues. And we need to look at that from the perspective of the whole community. So, an ecosystem of services. And this will include public safety, emergency, ambulance, hospitals, doctors and citizens and so forth. So, I just want to make this very simple comment about this importance of integrating our services and how we have a tremendous opportunity with ICTs to help in this enabling of this very important situation of the climate and how humans, plants, animals are going to survive for the future. And we’ll just hand this over now to Joao, please. Joao, please take it from here.

Joao Rocha Gomes: Hello, everyone. Good to see you. I hope you can hear me well in the room. Thank you for the quick introduction. And also, good welcome to L’Irchtrom. I’m not able to be in person with you, but hopefully I can support online as well with the speakers that we’re going to have online. I’ll just make a brief note about the agenda. So, as you can see, projected at the moment as well, we will start with some keynote introductions. We have several speakers that will join us. They are not all part of the Dynamic Coalition on Data-Driven Technologies. So, we have diverse backgrounds of people joining us. Then we will have mostly the participants of this Dynamic Coalition sharing their thoughts on this topic on a lightning round. So, we will have shorter times for each one assigned. We are also mindful of the time. And we will have everyone speaking and sharing their thoughts on that. And then I will bridge into a discussion section where the room will be open for comments, questions, or ideas from anyone either online, which I will take care of and collect and then share to the room, or in the room itself. And Jørn will bridge the questions to the speakers and make sure that the comments have a good grounding and a good place for them to be shared. And without further notice, I will pass now the word back to the room, to Jørn, so that we can proceed with the agenda.

Jorn Erbguth: Thank you, Jørn. I would like to take a quick look at our topic at resilience, vulnerability, and control in the context of leveraging the Internet in environment and health resilience. Of course, we have seen that connectivity boosts resilience in the IGF. Sorry, during COVID, we have seen that the Internet gave us a possibility to continue lots of activities, including healthcare, telemedicine, from remote diagnostics to robot-assisted surgery. The Internet kept services running when COVID hit, when natural disasters occur, when we have pandemics or political unrest, and that block physical access. But of course, the total dependence on the network also makes outages instantly disruptive for clinical decisions, supply chains, and payment systems. It also makes hospitals vulnerable to cyber attacks, as we all know. When we go a step further with large-scale health data collection, it’s also a double-edged sword, meaning that population-wide data sets can strengthen surveillance, early warning, and resource allocation concerning diseases, yet the same data can establish new inequities or hardwire old ones. Visible, for instance, in the persistence funding skewed towards breast cancer research over prostate cancer studies. Just one example I would like to point out in the next slide. When it comes to AI, this double-edged sword will even further sharpen. AI can either propose optimal care or be used by governments or industry to triage healthcare according to OPAC criteria, quietly determining who receives high-cost therapies and who is excluded. So the internet, data, and AI can strengthen healthcare resilience and resilience to environmental challenges, but they also introduce not only additional technical vulnerabilities, but more worrying still, a hard-to-detect potential for government abuse. So let’s take a look at some statistics. Here we see that the incidence of breast cancer and prostate cancer is about the same. The mortality is also about the same, but the funding is far from the same. We see the government funding is almost only half, and the philanthropic funding is even much less than half. This is just one example, and imagine that the data and AI can be used or abused by governments to focus on specific population groups where they want to allocate more funding, and the data will make it possible to analyze exactly where such funding has an effect on increasing inequities. And this, of course, is a risk that we face, and these inequities will not be transparent. They will not be visible because those decisions can be made in the dark and can be hidden behind decisions that seem to be neutral. So just as a short introduction where there are hidden risks, and with this I don’t want to extend my time further and give back to Jean to moderate the next keynotes.

Joao Rocha Gomes: Thank you. Thank you so much, Bjorn. I will move on very quickly now to June Parris. I believe she’ll be in the room with you all. She’s a retired specialist nurse in primary care mental health, a former MAG member at UN and Civicus, and an active ISOC and Civil Society health initiatives member from Barbados. So, June, if you are with us in the room, I will now give you the word.

June Parris: Good evening. Good afternoon to everyone in the room and everyone online. My name is June Parris. As he mentioned, I am retired, but I have been involved with IT for a number of years as a nurse. I worked in Europe and all health care in Europe, but I would like to say in the UK. It’s connected to the internet and connected to health care systems. So I’ve had those experiences working in a developed country, and then I retired to Barbados. It wasn’t the same when I got there. It’s not easy for them to keep up with what is happening in the first world. My colleague has alluded to some of the problems that we would have faced, mainly economics. Catching up is difficult, and we have to rely on expertise from overseas, Europe and North America. We also have to rely on experts coming in to give advice, and we also rely a lot on funding. How far does this funding go? In the Caribbean, we suffer from natural disasters. So we take one step forward and two steps backward most of the time. Therefore, any systems that are put in place are funded by experts and expertises, people from outside and North Americans and Europeans. We have to keep repeating this funding and spreading the resources out to accommodate all the changes that we would want to make. As you can see, that would be very difficult with limited resources. So apart from natural disasters, there’s also a climate of culture. Do we really want change? Is it easy to make changes in a culture, in an island culture, where people have islands? The way we think in the islands is not the same as the way we think in Europe, having the experience working in Europe. Basically, we don’t really think outside the box. So, there’s also other problems, namely the cost of the Internet, access to the Internet, maintenance of Internet systems, and basic use of the Internet. We are in a developing world and we have all these problems, you know. We have, as I mentioned before, we have the natural disasters, we have sargassum weed. Have you ever heard of sargassum? That is creating absolute problems on the island. Health as well as food shortages in terms of fishing. We had a natural disaster a few months ago where fishing boats were destroyed and they were unable to fish, to go fishing for a while. Therefore, the cost of living went up, health problems increased, and then, you know, it all reflects back on finances and economics. Okay, we’re trying, we’re making changes, we’re trying to improve, we’re employing experts, we’re receiving funding, lots of funding, but we have to put it to good use. Therefore, where does the Internet come in? How can we afford to keep up to date with all the other places in the world that are way ahead of us? So, I’m thinking that we need to educate. Education is very important. We need good use of resources, we need to improve our facilities, and we need to think ahead and plan ahead by having more research on the systems, trying to understand how to deal with these systems, and to put Internet use in good use, I would say. So, this is, I think I’m going to wrap up now. I think I’ve said everything that I want to say, and my other colleagues will add to it.

Joao Rocha Gomes: Thank you so much, June, and I believe this is a great segue as well to Jason Millar, which we have online speaking as well on this topic. I will now pass on the word to him, and I believe you can follow up on your words as well. Thank you.

Jason Millar: Hi, good morning, everyone. I hope you can hear me. So, as June would have just mentioned, we in the Caribbean have a number of not entirely unique, but definitely very in our face challenges. We depend very heavily on external resources, which means that any funding agency that targets us for aid will usually make us an offer, but at the same time, that also will come with terms and conditions or a set of constraining factors that will limit the actual potential to maybe fully address an issue in a way that is fully beneficial for us based on some of the boundaries that were put in place. We have many challenges as it relates to air quality because we get affected by things like the Sahara, which is a fairly constant flow across the Atlantic. It’s a very important and natural process, but certain aspects of these processes have been enhanced by climate change. For example, as June mentioned, the intrusion of seaweed, which continues to get worse within the Caribbean region. We also have the formation of tropical systems, such as Hurricane Beryl, which did significant damage to us, even though it didn’t hit us entirely directly, and as June would have mentioned, destroyed much of our fishing fleet. We also have anthropogenically caused issues within our islands, such as outputs from industrial agricultural processes. Barbados is known for production of sugar, and we have many cane fields which farmers use pesticides and herbicides on to control weeds and that sort of stuff. But because of the permeable nature of our rock that seeps into our groundwater supply, we have a lot of individual challenges that can combine into larger challenges. In seeking external help, we have to depend on the boundaries that are put in place by every funding agency that offers us help, and it may not allow us to fully remediate any of the issues. We also have problems with fires. There’s a culture of burning in Barbados, for example, where despite having laws to regulate the hours within which you can burn in the areas in which you can burn, vast sections of open lots and other areas where there are no physical buildings are burned yearly because that’s the culture. That’s the past tense, and dissemination of information is difficult in this age because of things like the rise of the influencer as opposed to cultures moving more towards embracing information from specific state sources. The internet has been used to a point by the state. I’m using Barbados as an example, but not enough to say that all of the potential for its use has been manifested. We could have more information about proper waste disposal sites to help with our waste issue. Dumping is a very large issue in Barbados as well. All of these things affect the soil quality due to the permeable nature of our rock, our groundwater systems, our baths, and that is within a very small surface area. So, the potential for the internet to regulate public perception is very strong in Barbados, and it has not been used as well as it could in the future. This could be changed in a more meaningful way. Sorry, I’m losing signal. Yes, it could be leveraged in a more meaningful way to make sure that people are more aware of certain aspects of governance within Barbados and policies that have been made to protect the public as opposed to being used to spread misinformation about these same things. I think I will wrap up there.

Joao Rocha Gomes: Thank you so much, Jason. I didn’t properly introduce you, but I believe it was clear from your speech that you’re working in the context of Barbados as well as an environmental professional. It was very clear that also the problems that you shared are not just one-sided or at least one-viewed, because June Perry had also mentioned many of the aspects that were voiced and echoed, but definitely you added a different perspective to the topic. So, thank you for that. Without further ado as well, I will also introduce Henrietta Mpofo. She’s a medical doctor with a strong environmental and health advocacy background and a formal focal point of UNEP’s children and youth major group. So, I will now give you the words, Henrietta. I believe you are with us online. You are muted, Henrietta.

Henrietta Ampofo: Hello. Merci beaucoup. Hi, I’m Dr. Henrietta Mpofo, as rightly introduced. I will just touch on solutions and prospects looking at our topic, environment, health, resilience, and the Internet, and how do these come together. Currently, I’m speaking from Dakar, and I’m at an AMNET conference, Applied Malaria Modelling Conference. It’s an epitome of how these three domains come together to solve problems. Over here, I’m speaking to researchers, and AMNET is being sponsored by the Gates Foundation to empower and equip researchers with skills to be applied in malaria modelling. Now, how does the Internet come in? How does the environment come in? And how do we provide solutions in these spheres? So, for example, right, with the malaria modelling, you can find out at which point in the year you have an increased incidence of malaria, especially from the effects of climate change and the fact that malaria is a vector-borne disease. You may have an increased incidence of malaria during certain seasons. And if you’re able to put in that model and be able to identify the factors that are increasing it, now you are able to, as June mentioned, allocate funding to areas that are in need. You can even subdivide it into populations that are even more susceptible. And so these are the ways by which the Internet can support this, right? Now, most of the modelling, we are using data sets, right? And these data sets are sitting on servers and being accessed through cloud computing. Some of the modelling is done online. And the data sets and the information is available to researchers and interested participants or interested policymakers online. So the Internet now is facilitating the combination of health resilience, just using malaria as an example, to be able to bring out solutions and to be able to implement interventions in a timely manner. If we are able to now… have this data broken down and you realize that a particular population, maybe children under five are more susceptible, that can also influence, you know, vaccine interventions, right? The fact that we think that vaccines, malaria vaccines, should be given to them. And so in all of this, the internet is very integral in the area of climate, in the area of environmental health, in the area of health resilience. And I would like to end here. I’m sure there are other people that can share more wonderful experiences, but we must always remember that internet governance is integral. It supports the infrastructure on which we can not just identify problems, not just offer solutions, but also disseminate solutions, right? We talk about integrity of the data. We are talking about cyber security. How safe is it? How are we sure that the data has not been tampered with? How accessible is it, right? Different parts of the world in Africa, where we have connectivity issues. So all these things come to play when we want to

Joao Rocha Gomes: use the internet for good. Thank you very much. Thank you so much, Henrietta. And also best of luck of voicing these concerns in Dakar, where you are at the moment. Thank you for finding the time as well to join. And I will also now pass the word to Alessandro Berioni. He is, just like Henrietta, a medical doctor. And he’s currently a chair of the Young Working Group of the World Federation of Public Health Associations. And I believe you have a presentation to share. So let’s see if that also works out with you sharing the screen. Feel free. Thank you so much, Joao, for the

Alessandro Berioni: kind introduction. And I hope you can see my presentation. Can you? Yes, it’s still loading. We see a WhatsApp conversation. Okay, that’s not good. Okay, that’s not good. Let me try. I will show now. Try again. Can you see it now? Can you now? Not yet. I know it. Yes. Okay, greatly. Hello, everyone. Good morning. Thanks for the invitation. And I hope you are doing fresh in Oslo. Here is boiling in Rome. As Joao said, I’m the chair of the Young WFPHA. Young, yes, WFPHA. It’s the working group of the World Federation of Public Health Associations. I wanted to start addressing my presentation with this title that I think resonates quite well with the topic that you were mentioning. So health resilience, internet in the environment, and health resilience. So from the public health perspective, I wanted to center this discussion by a quick keynote speech on the web and well-being. So how the net can actually enhance and threat the potential well-being and the public health in general in this really interesting era that we are living nowadays. So I will go with a quick introduction and explain some public health and the internet crossplay, some challenges and priority solutions. So introducing myself from start, I’ve been working with AI and I co-founded the Italian Association in Medicine, working for WHO, Young Innovators for Quality of Care group, which was mostly practical, innovating quality of care challenges, and finally working with the World Federation of Public Health Associations. So there is a common thread around health and innovation, which I’m really passionate about. So I will go first, what is the current main activities and sorry, the main of the internet in public health advancement and resilience, I would say. So most of the speaker has already said it and I would like to echo with what they’ve already said, but mostly the internet is announcing, I would say, early warning system for most of the concerns, either climate made, human made or so on. The remote care for the underserved areas and for health communication, either for public health messages, information and education. There is a but, because as many of the speakers have discussed previously, not everyone is addressed. There is a huge still digital divide that is a main concern in the public health field. Indeed, only one third of the global population, only two thirds of the global population are online and have access to internet and 2.6 billion are not achieving actually connection because of the situation they’re living in rural areas. So I would like also to remark the last point, the one on youth, which is the most connected people. So penetration rate of 72% compared to the general population. So as a youth group, I would like to remark that and understand how the youth people can also address the best and use at this best the internet, the web and all the digital tools that we are daily exposed to. There are some problems, as I said before, some challenges, which is again the digital divide, not everyone has access to it. For example, many of the people we are collaborating with in Africa are not always available or have chances to connect to internet. There is a huge problem with the misinformation as we also with COVID, with the vaccination situation, with political situation, as we are seeing as well, and ethical data governance in terms of transparency, accountability of data. Again, with all the neural networks, we cannot most of the time track how the data is going. So this is very interesting to understand. And I will move to the next slide, which is one of my, I will say core slides. I’ve been reading recently this book, which I really recommend is Nexus from Yuval Noah Rari. And there are three core parts that I wanted to share with you today, because they’re really also resonating with the main components of health. First of all, the fact that nowadays we’re not living with passive informative system, but active tools, again, neural networks. So we know we have a re-elaborated source of information, and we don’t know what is all this elaboration going through. Secondly, the algorithms are mostly based on engagement drive. So they’re engagement driven algorithms rather than value driven algorithms. And this is a key point we need to address. This is a main challenge. I personally think so in terms of all the private generation of all the algorithms. And finally, we need to restructure global governance to digital global governance as the UN is doing, for example, with the global digital compact, with the AI governational body. But this is something that needs to be also brought to the national level to enhance the regulation around all these tools. So what we are doing as a group of young WFPCA, the World Federation of Public Health Association, we have some priority actions, including the designing digital tools for equity and inclusivity, keeping this in mind, promote digital governance through frameworks and quality standards, of course, advocating a civil society, as we are not a governmental body. And finally, foster multi-sector collaboration across health, environment, tech, education, and so on. These are some of the achievements we have had. We do lots of education and advocacy around the UNGA, World Health Assembly, and many others, collaborations with the Council of Europe and so on. Again, one of our critical pillars is the capacity building. So allowing people to have digital literacy and giving them the ability to use the digital tools meaningfully, and also finding a way to train either the communities, the population, and the health workers through the digital tools that we advocate for. These are some of the conferences we organized around. If you want to participate, the next one is going to be in September 26th in Cape Town. Thank you, Arko, for registering. And another point I wanted to address is how internet is allowing people to co-create solutions, aggregating communities, and civil societies, and youth people, allowing a better participation to these platforms, let’s say. So I’m about to end. I just want to remark the point of the innovation ecosystem that is our strategy for addressing the current challenges in this internet sustainability current situation. The first point is announcing bottom-up innovation to address these public health challenges, which are big, big challenges and are lacking also of funds, not only of innovation lately. And secondly, structure this kind of solid platform framework that can allow this innovation process to go through all these repeated steps in order to get grounded on the specific implementation, let’s say, country or so. So I’m bringing you two examples. One is the hackathon we’re organizing for July 2nd. In case you would like to participate, this is something that we are moving forward, shaping the future of health with several partners. And then we are launching in late July call for global ideas on social innovation, mostly AI-powered social innovation, to showcase how public health can be advanced through the cutting-edge technology again. So just to remark all these points, we would like to call for an internet that is more solid, that can provide early action, and that can also be a shared resilience worldwide. So we are put at the forefront. This is our take-home message. So youth are at the forefront for the internet and the web, let’s say, digital era. Secondly, innovation is essential in public health. And also we claim for a renewed digital social contract to put people at planet first before profit and the engagement algorithms, let’s call it so. And nothing, I’m sorry for running a bit late, one minute or two. So yeah, if you want to connect with me or with the Young WPK, these are the contacts. Thank you, Joao, for the moderation. And back to you.

Joao Rocha Gomes: Thank you so much, Alessandro. And not just for the thoughts, but also for the actions that the events are organizing, even the book recommendations that you set in here. I would probably ask you later for you to forward the presentation so that we can share these resources and have them statically available. Thank you. And also, as you also mentioned, taking into account that we are already slightly over time, and since we don’t want to overrun the session, I will now bring the word back to the room. I believe we have Amado Spinoza in the room for a shorter round of Amado is a veteran in medical informatics and founder of Medicist, a key figure in digital health reform in Latin America. So, Amado, you have the word now.

J Amado Espinosa L: Thanks, Yao, and thank you very much for the opportunity to participate. Well, right now the main purpose of this digital coalition from IGF is mainly to introduce the community, how can you participate in a multi-stakeholder model in order to integrate all these new trends in technology like AI or quantum computing into the healthcare environment and healthcare services. Right now our focus, as Amali mentioned at the very beginning, is to approach the social predisponent factors of health which are pretty much related to the agentic resources or tools that we do already have from different training models already available at the market in where we are trying to provide the society with the proper resources in order to manage their own well-being and their own health. Then the new trend is right now not only to prevent but also to help the society how to improve their health and to become partners of this healthcare responsibility which is one of the SDGs. I encourage everybody of you from the technical community to join our efforts in order to integrate these environmental medicine variables that are currently measured in different environments into the social determinants of health that are also very well observed and included into these agentic models and also the technical community who are really deeply engaged in the neurological basis of behavior which are already incorporated into this new computing theory in terms of how to really take advantage of AI into the healthcare arena. I thank you everybody for your interest and please join our DC. You can see all our documents already published into the IGF home page and we will be very happy to share with you our ideas initiatives and goals for the next coming five to ten years. Thank you very much.

Joao Rocha Gomes: Thank you so much Amado and I think I’ll do exactly the same which is to add some of these recommendations of events and even actions that the DC is taking on to the session reports where then everyone can follow up and even join if wanted. I will now see in the room I also saw earlier Yao Amevisusu sitting also on the table with you. I will give him the word now. He’s an internet governance advocate and a youth mobilizer from Benin, member of the We the Internet coalition.

Yao Amevi A. Sossou: Thank you very much. Thank you very much Yao. On this topic I want to share perspective on the topic from a research I run last year. Starting from last year until this year in Benin regarding the gap between the promised health and the reality for people who are in need of the health solutions. During my research I conducted in Benin I found out the actually gap between the need of the people and the proposed appropriate solution that are made available to them on a daily basis. Let’s take two example of a young 18 year old student who usually rely on self-medications when he’s sick or go to a local pharmacy because of long waiting time at the hospitals or maybe because of loss of trust in the medical professionals and they seem to look for this care for them is like a last resort so they don’t trust them. And let’s take a case of a father who is also a social worker who have less income who views this financial medical taking care of their family as a big financial hurdles. So the first reflex in this case is to look for traditional medications and instead of going to the formal health care system which they found very expensive for them and these are not just unique stories. They represent the daily reality of countless families that I met during my research and for them resilience is about survival, is about also treatable illness like malaria when the cost is will be bearable for them. For most of them the cost of those treatment is almost a monthly income, a monthly salary for the whole family. So those are issues I encountered and also saw there were potential medical help available on the ground but there were lack of awareness about those solutions and those solutions when even on the ground the professionals they are not using the solution available and basically most of it what I found out is that most of the patients I interviewed during the research they didn’t trust on the solutions and even the doctors those that use the platform they confirmed that none of their patients are using the app and basically most of the barriers is deeply rooted on the lack of the human aspect of it. There is a profound lack of awareness and deeply seated mistrust in the health care system extending to it on the digital tools also and secondly there is a accessibility gap in the app where most of the people I interviewed are not really proficient in the official language French that they use so there’s a barrier also in terms of lack of a low literacy level. Thirdly affordability remains a big challenge, a big hurdle and this kind of app can’t help people if they are not really offering alternative solutions to the end user to have affordable health care so we must design with the community in mind. The people we are designing for we may design with them and co-create user-centered solutions that are culturally relevant and integrate local languages and local solutions for them. We must build a trust alongside digital platform and that they need to be integrated with the public health education and awareness campaign to show the value and reliability on just solutions. We must also make sure that the solutions are affordable especially during time of crisis and the cost to access those so the digital health solution made available must be very flexible in terms of payment and also make sure that they offer insurance opportunity to the end users on the ground. So those are the input I wanted to bring on board to this topic. Thank you very much. Heel back to you Joao.

Joao Rocha Gomes: Thank you so much Yael for giving us direct insights from the source as well on what are the issues that you see and sending some potential solutions or directions even so thank you once again. I will now give the word to Uda Kihi online with a senior researcher in wireless and green communication from Tunisia and PhD in telecommunications. I believe you will have slides to share with us so also feel free to go ahead and share the screen. Thank you so much

Houda Chihi: Joao. Could you hear me? Yes. Okay thank you. Hello everyone. Thank you so much Joao for this great introduction. I want also to thank all the participants for your attending our session and let me share my screen. Hope that it will be visible. Okay. Is it visible? Is it okay? Just I put it more bigger. I put it much bigger. Okay so thank you so much. So my today’s talk will be about cyber security for environment sustainability. Let’s start by the roadmap of my talk. I will start by the context and the challenges to understand more about the interests of this synergy between sustainability and cyber security. After that I will explain more the principle of this synergy together with challenges, best practices and I will sum up of my talk about the key address and key point of my talk. So what are the challenges? So today’s and nowadays due to rise of the problem of climate change we are obliged to exploit ICT for measuring green gas emission. So we speak about data sovereignty and ICT for a CO2 emission and measurement and we speak about new metrics for measuring the energy conceptions. So let’s say that ICT is integrated and it is based in data collection of energy. But here we have a threat of attacks, the rise of attacks in energy platforms if there is a lack of cyber security tools. So another challenge is the rise of the use of, we speak nowadays of the revolution of artificial intelligence and machine learning. So we speak about misinformation, fake profiles and we have also a great emerging of a new generative of artificial intelligence. So there is a threat of cyber security regarding the climate change. We will have different outcomes if there is a possibility of intrusion of any energy platforms or any energy algorithms. So this is another challenge is related to data energy theft, which is a risk of reputation of companies and sustainability in general. OK, so let’s understand a bit what is a cyber sustainability principle that we will explain in my talk today. So it is the combination between cyber security and other principles related to protection of society, environment and governance. Now we speak about a new protection of the planet and environment, which leads if it is done in an efficient way, we will speak about sustainability. And with the introduction of cyber security recommendation, we will have another principle, which is cyber sustainability. So what is that principle about? It is about the combination between the different practices of cyber security together with carbon footprint minimization or energy consumption minimization. So in this way, we will speak about a balance or tradeoff between sustainable development goals, satisfaction, which leads to sustainability together with cyber security practices. So in this way, we will have an alignment between cyber security and green tech. So it is a way of redirection of tech for both cyber security, our security of data protection, privacy, human rights protection, together with planet protection, environment, sustainability. So here we speak about a new concept, which is based in protection, which is based on specific policies to speak about cyber sustainability. We have different pillars to respect in the way to protect the environment together with data protection or human rights protection too. It is based on specific policies and recommendations. It is a redirection for people protection, whether it is related to planet, environment, health, health care or human rights in terms of data protection and information protection and tech solution, which will be green together with respect of cyber security, which leads to protection of human rights. And we speak about the green policies redirected or some tech for a human. So here it is a way of redirection for cyber security, for good, for both sustainability together with human rights protection. Simple practices for energy, we can use, for example, Internet of Things or sensors for energy monitoring and security. Best practices is to monitor the functionality and operability of these sensors in a safe way. Also, another recommendation is related to redirection or empowering research labs to focus more in this synergy between sustainability together with a security intersection. Here, we need a collaboration between different stakeholders and a mindset shift together with capacity building in both green practices and cyber security, which calls all developers, academia, environmental experts. We need all of them to sit in the table and collaborate and to state specific rules that are redirected for the benefit of the planet and human rights at the same time. So to not waste a lot of time, let’s go to the best practices and tips for sustainable cyber security. It’s in general based in three pillars. It is a specific environment responsibility. It is a social ethics. It is a technology resilience. It means that it is a redirection for technology for both green practices and together with respect and control of a specific ethics to protect the human rights and planet sustainability at the same time. Okay, let’s speak now more precisely in the impact of artificial intelligence because nowadays, artificial intelligence and machine learning are integrated everywhere, whether in cyber security or sustainability. But if we let them running with different kinds of data, we’ll have a bad outcome or we’ll have a different outcome that will be a threat of our lives and a threat of the planet. But here, it should be the use of artificial intelligence algorithm should be based in a specific quality of data sets together with if we conclude or remark of any threat or risk of bias or discrimination of specific information or bad outcome. We’ll have to do a specific audits and tests and adding the specific data that we need that lead us to have a good outcome. So, another good practices is based in the concept of the combination between the safety concept, sustainability together with cyber security, which is based in first of all, we need to do to have a simple practices such as data backup to not in case of we have any threat or risk. We don’t have a waste of all of data, but if we keep them and do the necessary backups and storage, there is no waste for us. There is no threat of reputation. We lost our data and repeat again the collection and waste the data and costs.

Joao Rocha Gomes: Excuse me, we have to move forward.

Houda Chihi: Okay, okay. So, let’s go to these facts. Okay. So, another important thing is to have inspiration from great companies and regulators or standards that are dealing with the problem of cyber security and convince them to state specific rules together for the benefit of the planet such as NIST, ESO, European acts.

Jorn Erbguth: Okay. Thank you very much for your ideas. Yes, I appreciate very much. Joao, please move ahead.

Joao Rocha Gomes: Thank you so much for gatekeeping the time. I always feel like a bad person every time I interrupt someone. So, thank you for doing that role. We definitely need it because our time is short. I will now briefly introduce Frederic as well. Be mindful of the time and please keep the intervention short. Frederic Cohen is a data-driven governance advocate with expertise in IGF and WSIS. So, Frederic, I’ll give you the word now.

Frederic Cohen: Hello, everyone, dear friends, members, and to all the participants. I would like to thank you all for the opportunity to express our consideration for this summit and to all the organizers. This month is a moment of meeting and exchanges as it was promoted by Dessa Boyce on a newsletter with the visit of the Under-Secretary-General Lee, Jr. in France for the Third Ocean Conference, also the Fourth International Conference on Financing for Development in Sevilla, and this IGF Summit in Norway. The topic of water is a major issue to protect the planet, dealing with health and sanitation to the people and that engages in combat pollution everywhere. Ecology is impacted by the interaction of humanity with the environment, and mass transfers of an industrialized population make life in danger. It is a forum of openness and inclusivity that is proposed for the international community to assist and support the decision-making that apply for the global economy. Consultation of population at a large scale of calculation is a manner to examine statistics and manage with a solution. The venue is a way to present personalities around the world and transmit information about their will of communication. It was expected to make progress into recognition. This event, that will make date, must be the occasion to remind the work done with the MAG to advance knowledge for prevention and application of the guidelines exposed with the Internet. Publications from UNDESA are an important reference for the discussion. It is supposed that every meeting should be founded by a major vote of the community, but also investment in the private sector and the engagement of member states together. We must demonstrate our commitment to improving communication for global affairs. As major goals for the nation, health, education and climate change are often reminded for the global market as topical investments to develop a fair economy. It is a sector of partnership with philanthropy, where participants can be proud to offer their volunteering. A transparent regulatory framework is needed to define an ambitious achievement in this matter. The future talk will notice the dynamic coalition on data-driven health technologies for this contribution to global effort, and it will be an important interest for the followers

Joao Rocha Gomes: of the initiative. I thank you very much. Thank you so much Frédéric, also for gatekeeping the time. And I will very quickly now bridge into discussion. I’ll just share a medical perspective. I also have some slides on the topic, but I’m also mindful of the time. I will invite everyone to leave their questions already in the chat if you have any. And I will share my screen, and I hope you can see the slides as well. Yeah, perfect. So just a very brief note on something that we are already aware of. Environmental hazards definitely do lead to health emergencies. We have reports stating that both air pollution and water contamination, just as examples, can have obvious implications on health outcomes. And surprisingly, this is a data point that I thought it was interesting to share, that 99% of the world’s population is living in places where the air quality guidelines are not met, the ones set by WHO. And this obviously is a burden. It can lead to conditions such as asthma, stroke, cardiovascular diseases, even cancer. And for water contamination, while we may think that we are already having good results, and we do have 73% of the population having good coverage in a safely and manageable drinking water access, it also means that the other 27% do not have so. And this may lead to diseases. It can be many types of gastroinfections, but also even cancers, for example, in the case of arsenic contamination in waters. And I wanted to bring some examples in here of initiatives that are ongoing or that happened recently that try to focus on these aspects. One of them is Breezometer, which is a mapping initiative that addresses the air quality in real time. And many applications that we currently use already consume the information provided by these tools. So we can see what are the environments where the air quality is better or worse. Then we also have the REACH project in Bangladesh, which would provide alerts to the population based on the quality and potential contamination of the water they were consuming in public wells and also in open systems. And then the SORMAS project in Nigeria and Ghana that was established and that is currently still working, trying to focus on mapping outbreaks of conditions, of diseases, and trying also to provide a response system that works in real time to alert populations, but also healthcare providers. And we know that vulnerability, as we saw based on this project, does not necessarily mean connectivity. So my one advocacy point in this intervention is for us to address the aspects of internet access, digital literacy, and inclusion in the system design, which are often lacking. So equity must be a design principle and not just an afterthought of these tools. And therefore, I really do think that we should pick up on some of these projects and leverage them into policy aligned interventions so that we can replicate what was well done, but also that we learn from the projects that didn’t work so well and try to bridge the gap or to at least solve some of the issues that were raised or found in many of these projects that leads to them not continuing over a bigger lifespan than what the funding allocates for. And without further ado, I would like to then invite questions from the audience. So I know that in the room you may have people that have questions. I believe you can raise the end and a microphone will be provided to you. And I will also look into the online chats to see if there’s any questions popping up. Please state your name and affiliation just for context before any intervention. Even if you don’t have questions, share your ideas and comments. Thank you so much.

Jorn Erbguth: Do we have some questions in the room? Please show hand. Yes. There’s a mic here. You can come. Yeah, please come here to the microphone and speak.

Audience: And please state your name and affiliation. I’m Marcelo Fornasin. I’m from Oswaldo Cruz Foundation Brazil, researcher in public health. Thank you for the congratulations for the interesting interventions we have here. I’d like to ask you about this. When we link the discussion between making the links between health and environment, we see new source of data for environmental health reproduced through Internet of Things. And I’d like to hear from you what you think about the validity of this data. How can we produce and use and evaluate the quality of this data produced by several devices for monitoring environment? And how can we use this data to provide the epidemiological surveillance in healthcare scenarios?

J Amado Espinosa L: Yes. May I? Yes, that’s an important question. And I think we have to double check on the feasibility of this data. Nowadays, as our colleague mentioned, the IoT is specifically dedicated to healthcare is almost in most of the countries already linked to the public health policies. And what we are realizing is it is not only to take care of the public health problems that are already available in place, as you already mentioned, but also how can we really help the population to improve their health? That means if they are having a fitness program, they are trying to compensate chronic diseases. And the environmental variables can play a role in order for them to help to improve this status. It’s very important to integrate those kind of values or those kind of information into their personal health record and provide them with personalized recommendations, personalized guidelines, which through the use of AI and those agentic resources I already mentioned to you are already available in certain applications. The most important step to equate right now is how can we define these guidelines in our own environment? Because it is not the same value which is here, for example, this beautiful country as it is in Mexico or in Panama or in another country, in another region. Then our recommendation is, of course, to join the efforts from the World Health Organization in order to have this data regionalized but included into the different platforms that are already available from the different regions and that we can really provide a personalized recommendation. Thanks.

Jorn Erbguth: You asked about the validity and, of course, this really depends on the type of data. So, if you have measurements about water qualities and, of course, if you have a trust laboratory, this data is quite valid. If you have indirect measurements by IoT devices, often you have to make a lot of assumptions about causes, about measurements that you can not directly measure, but that you can kind of get from direct measurements. Those are based on assumptions and, of course, they run the risk of including certain errors or even political misconceptions.

Yao Amevi A. Sossou: In that front, I would just want to add regarding how we can use those IoT solutions. I think in terms of trust on the solution, I think we need to come up with a unified mechanism. We are working on a mechanism of policies so that the data collected and how they are collected are done in the same way, to build trust on those data. And depending on the regions in the world, there are different methods used, but all in all, coming with unified regulations, regulatory measures, of course, to how we collect the data and scientifically proving the validity of those data, I think that will help build trust on the data, and then also we need to be able to replicate those methods and methodologies. Thank you.

Jorn Erbguth: Do we have comments from the online speakers on this question?

Houda Chihi: Houda has her hand raised. Yes. Okay, thank you so much for this question. So, I want to just add that the source of data collection is very important, and the next thing is the testing phase is very important too, because if we deploy any solution or directed for healthcare, an important thing is to test it before and to judge the outcome. After that, we can commercialize it or we can decline it or just adjust it or retrain and collect new data. And this is a collaborative effort between technical team and medical staff. Thank you.

Jorn Erbguth: Thank you. Are there any further comments from the experts? Otherwise, are there further questions from the room? Do we have questions online, Karel?

Joao Rocha Gomes: Yes, we do have a question online. I can read it out loud, and then I’ll let you add your thoughts on it. The question comes from a representative of IGF Ghana, and it reads, how can nurses balance the benefits of AI-driven healthcare with the essential needs for human empathy and compassionate patient care? I would even say beyond nurses, healthcare professionals as well.

June Parris: Can I say a few words? It’s up to the individual. As a healthcare professional, you should put your job first, but you should care about the patient and empathize and know something about what you’re talking about. The important thing in healthcare, too, is education. We have to have expert patients. The more expert a patient is, the easier the job is. Everything that we’ve said today, the environment, healthcare, internet, natural disasters, it all comes down to one thing, education. The healthcare professional, in particular, that they need to be dedicated to the job and do a good job.

Yao Amevi A. Sossou: I can also add to what you said, Jun, that especially the healthcare professionals, they need to educate themselves on the use of those emerging technologies available. But in their practices, they need to make sure they create more empathy with the patient visiting them. During my research I’ve done in Benin, I noticed that most of the trust issues come from the way they are dealing with the patient, and this creates a bridge of trust between them and their patients. So, creating empathy with the patient, but also educating themselves in how to combine those technologies into their daily practices. So, we are quite effective, I think. Thank you.

Houda Chihi: We have a hand from Huda. Would you like to… Yes. I want to say that any technology, whether it is based in AI or other things, is here to complement and to help us. But empathy is always the first thing that we should provide to any patient to let him accept any medical tool to help him recover very fast. Thank you.

Jorn Erbguth: Thank you. Do we have a further question from the room? I don’t see any from the room. How do… I’m not sure. We don’t have any. Maybe I add to the last question. Studies have shown that people tend to see more empathy in AI than in human doctors. Human doctors are often stressed under time pressure, and sometimes they don’t act with the empathy we would like them to act with. Of course, empathy is not just using the right words, but it’s a lot more. With AI, this is limited to the right words right now. When I look at doctors, I see a lot of doctors that have an issue with this kind of semi-educated patients that have used Google or GPT for their problems and question the authority of the doctor while not really understanding the issue. At the same time, AI can help to provide further explanation to patients. When a patient gets a diagnosis and they have a hard time understanding what it means, it could be provided to answer further questions that they have maybe after the doctor is gone, and they would need further answers, which cannot be given by the health system currently easily.

Joao Rocha Gomes: I will also maybe add a short 30-second point, also aware of the time on this note, which is the fact that empathy is often therapeutic. If we think about diseases or conditions that do not have a treatment, that aren’t curable, empathy is often the most important part of care. But we can also look at this from the perspective of, but when is it curable? Should we also spend the time and effort, taking into account that we have limited resources, empathizing with the patients or focusing on care? Obviously, the answer should be both. Not always that is possible. And healthcare results, even though they depend on both, above anything else, they depend on good results and good treatments for the patients. Empathy should always be part of it. And as you said, technology is here to help us leverage that part of care, potentially even a replacement in the future. I wouldn’t say that now that is possible. As you mentioned, it’s just words, not actions. And people still know that there’s not a human behind the machine. And that still counts, even if indirectly. But I would say that it’s still relevant. Thank you for the time as well. Maybe we can wrap up very soon.

Jorn Erbguth: We have to wrap up. Thank you. And this was already kind of a final comment from you. Thank you for your excellent moderation, Schrau. Thank you for all that organized this session. Thank you for Amali, who was unfortunately not able to come, and who is kind of the driving force between this dynamic coalition. Thank you for all the participants here on site, online. Thank you for attending, for your interesting questions, for your interests. And we know technology, Internet, AI, data, provide a lot of opportunities to improve healthcare, but also they come with a lot of risks that we have to tackle, and that we have to see how we can manage them in order to keep the risk low and the benefit high when it comes to healthcare and environment and how to improve resilience. So thanks a lot. And we will be at WSIS. So if you’re interested in the topic, please join us again at WSIS in two weeks. Thank you. ♪♪♪ ♪♪♪ ♪♪♪ ♪♪♪ Workshop 2. ♪♪♪ Workshop 2. ♪♪♪

Agreement points

Digital divide creates significant barriers to healthcare access

Speakers

– June Parris
– Alessandro Berioni
– Henrietta Ampofo
– Yao Amevi A. Sossou

Arguments

Caribbean countries face economic barriers to keeping up with developed nations’ health technology

Cost of internet access and maintenance creates barriers in developing regions

Only two-thirds of global population have internet access, with 2.6 billion lacking connection

Rural areas particularly affected by connectivity issues in Africa

Accessibility gaps exist due to language barriers and low literacy levels

Summary

Multiple speakers from different regions (Caribbean, Africa, global perspective) agree that lack of internet access, high costs, and infrastructure limitations create major obstacles to implementing digital health solutions, particularly affecting developing countries and rural areas.

Topics

Development | Infrastructure

Need for culturally appropriate and locally integrated digital health solutions

Speakers

– Yao Amevi A. Sossou
– Houda Chihi
– J Amado Espinosa L

Arguments

Need for culturally relevant and locally integrated solutions

Collaboration needed between technical community, academia, and environmental experts

Environmental variables should be integrated into personal health records

Summary

Speakers agree that digital health solutions must be designed with community input, cultural considerations, and local context in mind, requiring multi-stakeholder collaboration to be effective.

Topics

Development | Sociocultural

Technology should complement rather than replace human empathy in healthcare

Speakers

– June Parris
– Yao Amevi A. Sossou
– Houda Chihi

Arguments

Healthcare professionals must create empathy with patients to build trust

Need for healthcare professionals to educate themselves on emerging technologies

AI should complement human care while maintaining empathy

Summary

There is consensus that while technology can enhance healthcare delivery, human empathy and compassionate care remain essential elements that must be preserved and integrated with technological solutions.

Topics

Human rights | Sociocultural

Internet enables environmental and health monitoring systems

Speakers

– Alessandro Berioni
– Henrietta Ampofo
– Houda Chihi
– Joao Rocha Gomes

Arguments

Internet enables early warning systems for climate-related health threats

Malaria modeling using climate data helps predict disease patterns and allocate resources

IoT devices and sensors can monitor environmental factors affecting health

99% of world’s population lives in areas not meeting WHO air quality guidelines

Summary

Speakers agree that internet-connected technologies provide crucial capabilities for monitoring environmental health threats and enabling early warning systems for disease prevention and resource allocation.

Topics

Development | Infrastructure

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers from the Caribbean region highlight the challenges of dependency on external resources and funding, which creates limitations in addressing local health and environmental problems comprehensively.

Speakers

– June Parris
– Jason Millar

Arguments

Caribbean countries face economic barriers to keeping up with developed nations’ health technology

External funding comes with constraints that may limit full problem resolution

Topics

Economic | Development

Both speakers express concern about the potential misuse of AI and algorithmic systems in healthcare, emphasizing risks of discrimination and the need for value-based rather than profit-driven approaches.

Speakers

– Jorn Erbguth
– Alessandro Berioni

Arguments

AI can optimize care but also enable government abuse in healthcare rationing

Algorithms are engagement-driven rather than value-driven, creating challenges

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights

Both speakers emphasize the interconnected nature of health and environmental issues, supporting integrated approaches that consider climate factors in health planning and response.

Speakers

– Amali De Silva-Mitchell
– Henrietta Ampofo

Arguments

WHO mandates health as integral part of climate change issues

Malaria modeling using climate data helps predict disease patterns and allocate resources

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Unexpected consensus

Trust and mistrust in healthcare systems extends to digital solutions

Speakers

– Yao Amevi A. Sossou
– June Parris

Arguments

Patients often prefer self-medication over formal healthcare due to mistrust

Lack of awareness about available digital health solutions

Explanation

It’s notable that speakers from different regions (West Africa and Caribbean) independently identified similar patterns of patient mistrust in formal healthcare systems, which then extends to digital health solutions. This suggests a broader global challenge in healthcare trust that transcends regional boundaries.

Topics

Sociocultural | Human rights

Data quality and validation concerns across different technological applications

Speakers

– Houda Chihi
– Yao Amevi A. Sossou
– Audience

Arguments

Importance of testing and validation before deploying healthcare solutions

Need for unified regulatory mechanisms for data collection validity

Need to validate data quality from IoT devices for environmental health monitoring

Explanation

Unexpected consensus emerged around the critical importance of data validation and quality assurance across different speakers with varying technical backgrounds, suggesting this is a universal concern regardless of specific technological focus.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Overall assessment

Summary

Strong consensus exists around key challenges including digital divide, need for culturally appropriate solutions, importance of human empathy in healthcare, and potential of internet-enabled monitoring systems. Speakers consistently emphasized equity, accessibility, and human-centered approaches.

Consensus level

High level of consensus on fundamental challenges and principles, with speakers from diverse geographic and professional backgrounds identifying similar barriers and solutions. This suggests these issues are universal concerns in digital health implementation, with implications for policy development requiring coordinated global and local approaches that prioritize equity, cultural sensitivity, and human-centered design.

Different viewpoints

Role of AI in healthcare empathy and patient care

Speakers

– Jorn Erbguth
– June Parris
– Yao Amevi A. Sossou
– Houda Chihi

Arguments

Studies have shown that people tend to see more empathy in AI than in human doctors

It’s up to the individual. As a healthcare professional, you should put your job first, but you should care about the patient and empathize

Healthcare professionals must create empathy with patients to build trust

AI should complement human care while maintaining empathy

Summary

Jorn suggests AI may actually provide better perceived empathy than stressed human doctors, while other speakers emphasize the irreplaceable importance of human empathy and the need for healthcare professionals to prioritize genuine patient connection.

Topics

Human rights | Sociocultural

Primary barriers to digital health adoption

Speakers

– June Parris
– Yao Amevi A. Sossou
– Alessandro Berioni

Arguments

Caribbean countries face economic barriers to keeping up with developed nations’ health technology

Patients often prefer self-medication over formal healthcare due to mistrust

Only two-thirds of global population have internet access, with 2.6 billion lacking connection

Summary

June emphasizes economic and infrastructure barriers, Yao focuses on cultural mistrust and awareness issues, while Alessandro highlights the global digital divide as the primary barrier.

Topics

Development | Infrastructure | Sociocultural

Unexpected differences

Perception of AI empathy versus human empathy in healthcare

Speakers

– Jorn Erbguth
– June Parris
– Yao Amevi A. Sossou

Arguments

Studies have shown that people tend to see more empathy in AI than in human doctors

It’s up to the individual. As a healthcare professional, you should put your job first, but you should care about the patient and empathize

Healthcare professionals must create empathy with patients to build trust

Explanation

Unexpectedly, there was disagreement about whether AI could potentially provide better empathy than human healthcare providers. This is surprising given the general consensus that human connection is irreplaceable in healthcare.

Topics

Human rights | Sociocultural

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion showed relatively low levels of fundamental disagreement, with most speakers sharing common goals around improving digital health access and equity. The main areas of disagreement centered on prioritization of barriers (economic vs. cultural vs. infrastructure) and the role of AI in patient care.

Disagreement level

Low to moderate disagreement level. Most disagreements were about emphasis and approach rather than fundamental goals. This suggests good potential for collaborative solutions, though different regional perspectives and professional backgrounds led to different prioritization of challenges and solutions.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers from the Caribbean region highlight the challenges of dependency on external resources and funding, which creates limitations in addressing local health and environmental problems comprehensively.

Speakers

– June Parris
– Jason Millar

Arguments

Caribbean countries face economic barriers to keeping up with developed nations’ health technology

External funding comes with constraints that may limit full problem resolution

Topics

Economic | Development

Both speakers express concern about the potential misuse of AI and algorithmic systems in healthcare, emphasizing risks of discrimination and the need for value-based rather than profit-driven approaches.

Speakers

– Jorn Erbguth
– Alessandro Berioni

Arguments

AI can optimize care but also enable government abuse in healthcare rationing

Algorithms are engagement-driven rather than value-driven, creating challenges

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights

Both speakers emphasize the interconnected nature of health and environmental issues, supporting integrated approaches that consider climate factors in health planning and response.

Speakers

– Amali De Silva-Mitchell
– Henrietta Ampofo

Arguments

WHO mandates health as integral part of climate change issues

Malaria modeling using climate data helps predict disease patterns and allocate resources

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Key takeaways

Digital health technologies offer significant opportunities for environmental health monitoring and healthcare resilience, but create new vulnerabilities including cyber attacks and potential for government abuse in healthcare rationing

A major digital divide exists globally, with only two-thirds of the population having internet access, creating barriers to equitable healthcare delivery especially in developing regions

Trust and cultural barriers significantly impact adoption of digital health solutions, with patients often preferring traditional remedies due to mistrust of formal healthcare systems

Environmental health monitoring through IoT devices and AI can enable early warning systems and better resource allocation, but data validity and standardization remain critical challenges

Healthcare inequities can be perpetuated or hidden through biased data collection and AI algorithms, as demonstrated by funding disparities between similar diseases

Multi-stakeholder collaboration is essential, requiring integration across health, environment, technology, and policy sectors with youth playing a leading role

Empathy and human connection remain crucial in healthcare delivery, even as AI and technology become more prevalent in medical practice

Cybersecurity must be integrated with sustainability principles to create ‘cyber sustainability’ that protects both data and environmental health

Resolutions and action items

Participants encouraged to join the Dynamic Coalition on Data-Driven Health Technologies and access published documents on the IGF homepage

Upcoming hackathon scheduled for July 2nd on ‘Shaping the Future of Health’ with call for participation

Global call for AI-powered social innovation ideas to be launched in late July to advance public health through technology

Next World Federation of Public Health Associations conference scheduled for September 26th in Cape Town

Follow-up session planned at WSIS in two weeks for continued discussion on the topic

Session organizers committed to sharing presentation materials and resources for static availability

Unresolved issues

How to establish unified regulatory mechanisms and standards for IoT health data collection and validation across different regions

How to balance AI-driven healthcare efficiency with essential human empathy and compassionate patient care

How to address the fundamental affordability barriers that make digital health solutions inaccessible to low-income populations

How to overcome cultural resistance and build trust in digital health technologies in traditional communities

How to ensure data sovereignty and prevent misuse of health data by governments or corporations for discriminatory purposes

How to bridge the language and literacy gaps that prevent effective use of digital health platforms

How to create sustainable funding models for digital health initiatives that don’t come with restrictive constraints

Suggested compromises

Technology should complement rather than replace human healthcare providers, maintaining the essential human element while leveraging AI capabilities

Digital health solutions should be co-created with communities to ensure cultural relevance and local language integration

Flexible payment systems and insurance opportunities should be built into digital health platforms to address affordability concerns

Regional adaptation of global health guidelines and standards to account for local environmental and cultural differences

Gradual education and capacity building approach to help healthcare professionals and communities adapt to new technologies

Balance between data collection for public health benefits and privacy protection through transparent governance frameworks

The WHO has mandated that the health matters are integral part of climate change issues. And we need to look at that from the perspective of the whole community. So, an ecosystem of services. And this will include public safety, emergency, ambulance, hospitals, doctors and citizens and so forth.

Speaker

Amali De Silva-Mitchell

Reason

This comment established the foundational framework for the entire discussion by emphasizing the interconnected nature of health, climate, and technology systems. It moved beyond siloed thinking to advocate for integrated policymaking and governance frameworks.

Impact

This opening comment set the tone for the entire session, establishing the multi-stakeholder, ecosystem approach that subsequent speakers built upon. It provided the conceptual foundation that allowed other speakers to discuss their regional challenges within this broader integrated framework.

AI can either propose optimal care or be used by governments or industry to triage healthcare according to OPAC criteria, quietly determining who receives high-cost therapies and who is excluded… these inequities will not be transparent. They will not be visible because those decisions can be made in the dark and can be hidden behind decisions that seem to be neutral.

Speaker

Jorn Erbguth

Reason

This comment introduced a critical ethical dimension by highlighting how technology can perpetuate or create new forms of discrimination while appearing neutral. The breast cancer vs. prostate cancer funding example provided concrete evidence of existing inequities that could be amplified by AI systems.

Impact

This comment shifted the discussion from purely technical benefits to ethical considerations and power dynamics. It established a critical lens that influenced how subsequent speakers addressed technology implementation, with many emphasizing the need for transparency, accountability, and equity in their presentations.

We depend very heavily on external resources, which means that any funding agency that targets us for aid will usually make us an offer, but at the same time, that also will come with terms and conditions or a set of constraining factors that will limit the actual potential to maybe fully address an issue in a way that is fully beneficial for us.

Speaker

Jason Millar

Reason

This comment revealed the complex power dynamics and dependency relationships that affect technology implementation in developing regions. It highlighted how external funding can inadvertently perpetuate problems by imposing constraints that don’t align with local needs.

Impact

This insight added a crucial geopolitical dimension to the discussion, prompting other speakers to consider not just technical solutions but also the political economy of health technology implementation. It influenced the conversation toward more nuanced discussions about local ownership and culturally appropriate solutions.

Most of the patients I interviewed during the research they didn’t trust on the solutions and even the doctors those that use the platform they confirmed that none of their patients are using the app and basically most of the barriers is deeply rooted on the lack of the human aspect of it. There is a profound lack of awareness and deeply seated mistrust in the health care system extending to it on the digital tools also.

Speaker

Yao Amevi A. Sossou

Reason

This comment provided crucial ground-truth evidence that challenged assumptions about technology adoption. It revealed that technical solutions alone are insufficient without addressing fundamental trust issues and human-centered design principles.

Impact

This comment significantly shifted the discussion from technology-focused solutions to human-centered approaches. It prompted other speakers to emphasize the importance of community engagement, cultural relevance, and trust-building in their subsequent interventions, fundamentally changing the conversation’s focus.

The algorithms are mostly based on engagement drive. So they’re engagement driven algorithms rather than value driven algorithms. And this is a key point we need to address… we claim for a renewed digital social contract to put people at planet first before profit and the engagement algorithms.

Speaker

Alessandro Berioni

Reason

This comment identified a fundamental structural problem with current technology systems – that they optimize for engagement rather than health outcomes or social good. The call for a ‘renewed digital social contract’ provided a concrete framework for addressing these issues.

Impact

This comment introduced a systems-level critique that elevated the discussion beyond individual applications to broader questions about how technology platforms are designed and governed. It influenced the conversation toward policy and governance solutions rather than just technical fixes.

Studies have shown that people tend to see more empathy in AI than in human doctors. Human doctors are often stressed under time pressure, and sometimes they don’t act with the empathy we would like them to act with.

Speaker

Jorn Erbguth

Reason

This counterintuitive observation challenged common assumptions about AI lacking human qualities. It revealed the complex reality that stressed healthcare systems may actually make human providers less empathetic than well-designed AI systems.

Impact

This comment prompted a nuanced discussion about the role of empathy in healthcare and how technology might complement rather than replace human care. It led to a more sophisticated understanding of the human-AI relationship in healthcare delivery.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally shaped the discussion by moving it beyond a simple technology-benefits narrative to a complex, multi-dimensional analysis of power, equity, trust, and human-centered design. The conversation evolved from initial technical optimism through critical examination of systemic inequities, to practical insights about implementation challenges, and finally to sophisticated discussions about governance and human-AI collaboration. The most impactful comments were those that introduced evidence-based challenges to assumptions, revealed hidden power dynamics, or provided concrete examples of implementation failures. This created a more honest and actionable discussion that acknowledged both the potential and the pitfalls of leveraging internet technologies for health and environmental resilience.

How can we validate and evaluate the quality of data produced by IoT devices for environmental health monitoring?

Speaker

Marcelo Fornasin

Explanation

This is crucial for ensuring the reliability of environmental health data used in epidemiological surveillance and public health decision-making

How can we use IoT-generated environmental data to provide epidemiological surveillance in healthcare scenarios?

Speaker

Marcelo Fornasin

Explanation

Understanding the practical application of environmental IoT data in health surveillance systems is essential for effective public health responses

How can healthcare professionals balance AI-driven healthcare benefits with the need for human empathy and compassionate patient care?

Speaker

IGF Ghana representative

Explanation

This addresses the fundamental challenge of maintaining human connection in increasingly automated healthcare systems

How can we develop unified regulatory mechanisms and policies for IoT data collection across different regions?

Speaker

Yao Amevi A. Sossou

Explanation

Standardized approaches are needed to build trust in IoT-generated health and environmental data globally

How can we regionalize environmental health guidelines while maintaining global standards?

Speaker

J Amado Espinosa L

Explanation

Environmental conditions vary by region, requiring localized guidelines that still maintain scientific validity and global coherence

How can we design digital health solutions that are culturally relevant and integrate local languages?

Speaker

Yao Amevi A. Sossou

Explanation

Addressing accessibility barriers and cultural appropriateness is essential for effective adoption of digital health tools in diverse communities

How can we develop sustainable funding models for digital health initiatives in developing countries?

Speaker

June Parris and Jason Millar

Explanation

Current dependency on external funding creates unsustainable cycles, particularly when natural disasters repeatedly set back progress

How can we address the engagement-driven versus value-driven algorithms challenge in health applications?

Speaker

Alessandro Berioni

Explanation

Current algorithms prioritize engagement over health outcomes, which could lead to harmful health recommendations

How can we establish transparent and accountable AI governance frameworks for health applications?

Speaker

Alessandro Berioni and Houda Chihi

Explanation

The black-box nature of neural networks makes it difficult to track how health-related decisions are made, raising concerns about accountability

How can we replicate successful digital health projects and learn from failed ones to improve policy interventions?

Speaker

Joao Rocha Gomes

Explanation

Many digital health projects don’t continue beyond their funding period, suggesting a need to better understand success factors and sustainability models

Summary

This discussion from the Internet Governance Forum in Norway focused on the Digital Emblem Initiative, which aims to create a universally-recognized symbol for protecting digital infrastructure during armed conflicts. The session featured Samit D’Chuna, legal adviser at the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), and Chelsea Smethurst, Director for Digital Diplomacy at Microsoft, moderated by Tejas Bharadwaj from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

D’Chuna explained the historical foundation of the Red Cross emblem, tracing its origins to Henri Dunant’s experience at the 1859 Battle of Solferino, which led to the first Geneva Convention in 1864. He emphasized that the physical emblem has been largely successful over 160 years, with violations making headlines precisely because they are exceptional rather than routine. The digital emblem project emerged from the recognition that modern conflicts increasingly involve cyber operations, and medical services and humanitarian organizations now depend heavily on digital infrastructure that currently lacks any form of protection identification.

The technical requirements for the digital emblem include being decentralized, allowing covert inspection without alerting adversaries, and being removable based on security assessments. Three technical approaches are being considered: protected entity flags, digital certificates, and metadata labels. Key challenges include preventing misuse, ensuring accessibility for organizations in developing countries, and achieving global standardization through the Internet Engineering Task Force.

Smethurst highlighted the importance of industry adoption, noting that the Cybersecurity Tech Accords’ 160+ member companies represent over a billion customers globally. Both speakers emphasized that success requires technical standardization, legal integration into international humanitarian law, and widespread multi-stakeholder adoption. The initiative represents a necessary adaptation of timeless humanitarian principles to the realities of modern digital warfare, requiring both technical innovation and diplomatic consensus to protect vulnerable populations who increasingly depend on digital connectivity during conflicts.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Digital Emblem Initiative Overview**: The creation of a universally-recognized digital symbol to protect digital infrastructure during armed conflicts, extending the traditional Red Cross/Red Crescent emblem concept into cyberspace. This initiative aims to identify and protect medical services and humanitarian operations that now depend heavily on digital infrastructure.

– **Technical Implementation Challenges**: Discussion of three main technical approaches (protected entity flags, digital certificates, and metadata labels) and key requirements including decentralization, covert inspection capabilities, and removability. The challenge lies in making the system secure enough to prevent misuse while simple enough for humanitarian organizations in developing countries to implement.

– **Legal Integration and Global Adoption**: The need for diplomatic efforts to integrate the digital emblem into international humanitarian law through various mechanisms (amending existing protocols, creating new protocols, or unilateral declarations) and ensuring adoption by all 196 states party to the Geneva Conventions.

– **Trust and Effectiveness Concerns**: Addressing skepticism about whether a digital emblem will be respected given current violations of physical emblems in conflicts. The speakers emphasized that the vast majority of emblem protections work invisibly and successfully, with violations being the exception that receives media attention.

– **Multi-stakeholder Collaboration**: The importance of bringing together governments, tech companies (like the 160+ members of the Cybersecurity Tech Accords), humanitarian organizations, and international bodies through forums like the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) to develop and implement the standard.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to introduce and explain the Digital Emblem Initiative, which seeks to extend traditional humanitarian protections into the digital realm. The session was designed to educate participants about the project’s technical, legal, and diplomatic aspects while addressing concerns about implementation and effectiveness.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a professional, educational tone throughout, with speakers presenting complex legal and technical concepts in accessible terms. The tone was optimistic about the project’s potential while acknowledging realistic challenges. During the Q&A session, the tone became more conversational and defensive when addressing skeptical questions about the emblem’s effectiveness given current conflict violations, but remained respectful and informative. The speakers demonstrated expertise while showing openness to collaboration and feedback from the international community.

Speakers

– **Tejas Bharadwaj**: Senior Research Analyst at Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, India; Session moderator

– **Samit D’Chuna**: Legal adviser at the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC); Legal and policy lead for the Digital Emblem Project

– **Chelsea Smethurst**: Director for Digital Diplomacy at Microsoft; Technical lead working on the Digital Emblem Initiative

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

**Additional speakers:**

– **Jure Bokovoy**: Finnish Green Party member (audience member who asked a question)

– **Mia Kuhlewin**: Works in the Internet Engineering Task Force on transport protocols (audience member who asked a question)

# Digital Emblem Initiative: Extending Humanitarian Protection into Cyberspace

## Discussion Summary from the Internet Governance Forum, Norway

### Introduction and Context

This session at the Internet Governance Forum in Norway examined the Digital Emblem Initiative, a project aimed at creating digital symbols to protect humanitarian and medical infrastructure during armed conflicts. The session was moderated by **Tejas Bharadwaj**, Senior Research Analyst at Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, India, and featured **Samit D’Chuna**, Legal Adviser at the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and Legal and Policy Lead for the Digital Emblem Project, and **Chelsea Smethurst**, Director for Digital Diplomacy at Microsoft and Technical Lead working on the Digital Emblem Initiative.

The session followed a structured format with a 20-minute keynote, presentations from both speakers, a 35-minute panel discussion, and a 15-minute Q&A period that included questions from online participants.

### Historical Foundation and Legal Framework

**Samit D’Chuna** established the historical context, noting his role as “legal advisor, not a technical person” while clarifying that the project does have technical leadership. He traced the protective emblem system to Henri Dunant, a businessman who witnessed the 1859 Battle of Solferino and was moved to organize care for wounded soldiers regardless of which side they fought for. This led to the first Geneva Convention in 1864 and the creation of the Red Cross emblem.

D’Chuna explained that the emblem functions “like a stop sign” under international humanitarian law to identify protected persons and objects during armed conflicts. The system has been largely successful over 160 years, with violations making headlines precisely because they are exceptional rather than routine.

### The Digital Challenge

The speakers outlined how modern conflicts increasingly involve cyber operations targeting digital infrastructure. Medical services and humanitarian organizations now depend heavily on digital systems, yet these critical digital assets currently lack protection identification under international humanitarian law.

D’Chuna explained that the digital emblem project emerged from recognizing this gap: the need to protect digital infrastructure used by medical and humanitarian services during conflicts.

### Technical Implementation Approaches

**Chelsea Smethurst** outlined three primary technical approaches being considered:

1. **Protected Entity Flags**: Identifiers attached to website addresses, similar to physical emblems on buildings

2. **Digital Certificates**: Cryptographic verification of protected status, described as “passports for websites”

3. **Metadata Labels**: Embedded within digital files to provide protection that travels with the data

D’Chuna specified three critical technical requirements: the system must be decentralized (no central authority controls usage), support covert inspection (can be checked without alerting the protected entity), and be removable based on security analysis.

### Security and Accessibility Challenges

Smethurst identified three main technical challenges: ensuring security to prevent misuse, maintaining simplicity for developing countries to implement, and achieving standardization across different systems.

A central concern is that marking humanitarian infrastructure might actually increase exposure to malicious actors. The system must allow organizations to remove emblems if security analysis shows risks outweigh benefits.

### Legal Integration and Diplomatic Progress

The project requires integration into international humanitarian law through various mechanisms including amending existing protocols or creating new ones. The goal is adoption by all 196 states party to the Geneva Conventions.

Significant progress has been achieved: the 34th International Conference of Red Cross and Red Crescent (held last October) adopted a consensus resolution encouraging digital emblem work. Additionally, the Cybersecurity Tech Accords, representing 150-160 technology companies globally, adopted a digital emblem pledge.

### Multi-Stakeholder Collaboration

The technical standardization process will occur through the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), with a working group meeting scheduled for July to develop technical standards. The Australian Red Cross will lead work with national societies to integrate the digital emblem into domestic legal systems.

The project extends beyond the Red Cross to include other protective emblems: three orange circles for dangerous forces, civil defense emblems, and Blue Shield/UNESCO cultural property symbols.

### Addressing Effectiveness Concerns

**Tejas Bharadwaj** posed a fundamental challenge: given that physical emblems are sometimes violated in current conflicts, why should anyone believe a digital emblem will be more effective?

**Samit D’Chuna** reframed this concern: “The vast majority of the time the emblem is respected… what we see in the news are violations… it’s important to remember that the vast majority of the time the emblem does in fact work.” He referenced the “Roots of Restraint” study showing that people in conflict-affected areas report international humanitarian law works effectively despite violations receiving disproportionate media attention.

D’Chuna emphasized that international humanitarian law compliance relies on “training, bilateral dialogue, and moral obligation, not just punishment,” noting that the ICRC engages in confidential dialogue with both state and non-state actors, including cyber groups.

### Audience Questions and Concerns

**Jure Bokovoy**, a Finnish Green Party member, questioned trust in the emblem system given recent violations by major Geneva Convention signatories without significant international law enforcement.

**Mia Kuhlewin**, who works in IETF on transport protocols, raised questions about the digital emblem’s relationship to broader cybersecurity protection measures, highlighting the need for clarification on whether these should be integrated or separate initiatives.

Other audience concerns included the role of platform companies in conflict narrative shaping and questions about algorithmic amplification issues, though these topics were only briefly addressed.

### Technical Philosophy

**Chelsea Smethurst** emphasized a key principle: “We’re not driving this as a cyber security initiative, rather it is how do we develop security controls to support the legal requirements.” This ensures technical solutions serve humanitarian law requirements rather than driving them.

### Implementation Timeline and Next Steps

Concrete next steps include:

– IETF working group launching in July for technical standards development

– Continued annual ICRC meetings with states for legal integration

– Australian Red Cross leading domestic integration work

– Ongoing engagement with technology companies beyond current supporters

The ICRC has also published “Eight Rules for Hackers” as part of broader engagement with digital actors.

### Conclusion

The Digital Emblem Initiative represents an attempt to adapt humanitarian principles to digital warfare realities. While the project benefits from diplomatic momentum, industry support, and technical expertise, it faces challenges including technical complexity, global accessibility requirements, and questions about symbolic protection effectiveness in contemporary conflicts.

The discussion revealed broad consensus on the need for digital humanitarian protection and the multi-stakeholder approach required, even as significant implementation challenges remain. Success will depend on building the same trust system that has made physical emblems largely successful while adapting to unique digital domain characteristics.

Tejas Bharadwaj: I think I’ll start again. So good morning and welcome to all the wonderful participants I’ve gathered today. This is day one of the Internet Governance Forum from Norway. A session today titled Modern Warfare, Timeless Emblems, will uncover the progress as well as the prospects of the Digital Emblem Initiative that aims to create a universally-recognized symbol for protecting digital infrastructure during conflicts. We have two wonderful speakers here today to discuss this topic, Samit D’Chuna, the legal adviser of the International Committee on Red Cross, and Chelsea Smethurst, the Director for Digital Diplomacy at Microsoft. I’ll introduce myself, I’m Tejas Bharadwaj, Senior Research Analyst at Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, India, and I’ll be moderating this interesting session. A quick note for our participants on the session’s format and some housekeeping rules. The session will start with a 20-minute keynote by Samit, who will offer you the nitty-gritty about the Digital Emblem Project. This will be followed by a series of presentations by Samit, Chelsea, and I, and then we’ll have a Q&A session followed by a 35-minute moderated panel discussion where Samit, Chelsea, and I will explore different aspects of the Digital Emblem Initiative, covering its concepts, the aspects of inclusivity and scale, challenges involving its implementation, its associated risks, and also what to look ahead. Finally, in the end, we’ll open the floor for some questions for about 15 minutes. For the online participants streaming in, add your questions in the chat box. Please start, yeah.

Samit D’Chuna: Tejas, thank you so much for that wonderful introduction. Good morning, everyone. Thank you to the IGF for hosting us for this very important topic, and thank you to all of you. I know there’s some really interesting workshops going on at the same time, so thank you so much for making the time for this one. As Tejas mentioned, my name is Samit Dukuna. I am a legal advisor at the International Committee of the Red Cross, or the ICRC. For those of you that don’t know, the International Committee of the Red Cross, or the ICRC, is the organization mandated by international… and I’m here to talk about the ICRC’s mandate in international law to protect and assist victims of armed conflict and other situations of violence. So through our mandate in international law, the ICRC engages in a host of different activities. We visit persons that are deprived of liberty, persons that are detained, reunite family members that are separated in armed conflict. We contribute to the respect for and development of international humanitarian law, which is really a big part of the ICRC’s work that I’ll talk to you a bit more about today. We, of course, support the medical services in their work and crucially, we engage confidentially and bilaterally with parties to armed conflict when such situations are taking place. So states, when there are parties to armed conflict and also non-state parties, you know, what you might refer to as armed groups, are also a key interlocutor for the ICRC. And so in that role, we’re often referred to as the guardians of international humanitarian law or the guardians of the law of war. And it’s in that position that the ICRC has a role to play in protecting and assisting victims of armed conflict and other situations of violence and other situations of violence that I’ll talk to you a bit more about today. So, I think that’s a really important point that we need to make, and that the ICRC is sort of well-positioned to say, along with a growing number of states and other stakeholders, that today, digital technologies are really shaping the contours of modern conflict. We are very much witnessing a profound shift in the environments where international humanitarian law must operate, and as a result, we do have to think about how international law must adapt to some of these profound changes. And the digital emblem is, the digital emblem project is sort of a small project, but it’s a very large project. And I think that our new digital emblem project is going to be a key part of that. It’s a necessary adaptation, as I hope you’ll see by the end of this workshop, to basically the modern nuances of armed conflict. So what is the digital emblem project? Well, if we start with the Red Cross and the Red Crescent emblem, they have of course long marked the protection of physical persons and objects. And I guess the question then is today, what does that mean in a reality where cyber operations are a key part of armed conflict and digital infrastructure is a key part of that? The key part of the work undertaken by the medical services and humanitarian organizations. But I’m getting a little bit ahead of myself now because I’m already kind of talking about the physical emblem and the digital emblem and modern conflict. I want to take a sort of a step back so that everyone’s kind of on the same page and understanding of what exactly we’re talking about when we talk about an emblem. And we’ll really go to our title for this and try to understand this concept of a timeless emblem. What is a timeless emblem? And that story starts a little bit more than 160 years ago in a city where I live called Geneva, right? Geneva in Switzerland, where a Swiss businessman named Henri Dunant. He had these great business ideas and he was having a bit of an issue with one of his business projects. And to deal with that issue, he was able to organize a meeting with the king of France. He was that influential that he was able to meet the king of France to sort of iron out some of these issues he was having with his business. The problem was that the king of France was not in France. At the time, he was actually in northern Italy with his army because he was fighting, you know, his army and with him at the lead. We’re fighting in something that’s now known as the Second War of Italian Independence, fighting against the Austro-Hungarian Empire. And so Henri Dunant, he’s a businessman, he’s savvy, he’s persevering and stubborn. And he says, no problem. This is a pressing issue. I’m just going to pack my bags and I’m going to go to northern Italy and I’m going to meet the French king there. And so he makes his way to northern Italy and he arrives near a village called Solferino. He actually arrives the day after a horrific battle takes place. And if you put yourself in the shoes of sort of a, you know, a 19th century European, your image of what warfare is, is actually something quite sort of honorable and almost beautiful in a way, right? Like you imagine sort of the honor of the armed forces and the great things that they were doing to protect the state, to protect the nation. And when Henri Dunant arrives on, you know, the aftermath of this horrific battle. Well, he doesn’t actually see any honor. He doesn’t see any beauty. What he sees is carnage, right? So he sees wounded soldiers. He sees sick soldiers. He sees dead soldiers and he sort of what’s left of the medical services of the armed forces really completely overwhelmed by the carnage and the destruction on the, you know, on the battlefield near Solferino. And Alhidruna is completely moved by what he sees and he decides forget about these business ideas. There’s no need to meet with the French King about business. There’s something more important happening right now. And Alhidruna goes to a nearby village called Castiglione and he mobilizes the local population in Castiglione particularly nurses and women and he kind of says to them, you know, there are people in need here. Some of them are French. Some of them are Italian. Some of them are Austro-Hungarian and none of that actually matters because when you’re wounded or when you’re sick, you’re what we now call in French, hors de combat. We are outside of combat and you’re just a person in need and these people need help. And so he mobilizes the population to go to the battlefield and provide assistance to these persons that are wounded and sick. Eventually, he does meet with the French King, decides not to talk about his business ideas at all. And instead what he does is he convinces the French King to release some of the doctors of the Austro-Hungarian Empire that of the army of the Austro-Hungarian Empire that had actually been detained and he convinces them to release those doctors to provide even more assistance to the wounded and the sick. So just a complete paradigm shift for Henri Dunant that really reflected throughout the rest of his life because he returns back to Geneva and he writes a book and he writes a book and it’s called Un Souvenir de Solferino. So a memory of Solferino and in his book, he talks about the suffering that he saw on the battlefield and he basically proposes two sort of key paths forward. The first one is to say that in times of peace. The civilized world, as he called it, needs to set up organizations that have, as their profession, the ability to provide assistance and protection to the wounded and the sick in armed conflict. Because that is not a role that we can entrust solely to the armies of the adversaries. There has to be some sort of neutral and impartial assistance that’s provided on the battlefield and more broadly in situations of armed conflict. And that’s sort of the precursor of the International Committee of the Red Cross, the International Federation of the Red Cross, and the 191 what we call national societies, independent organizations of Red Cross and Red Crescent societies all over the world. So the Norwegian Red Cross or the French Red Cross or the Turkish or Syrian Red Crescent, those are all independent components, independent organizations that are components of the Red Cross and Red Crescent movement. And that was that first idea of Samit D’Chuna. And then the second idea that’s even more crucial to our discussion today was that, you know, he was saying, if we’re going to create all of these different organizations, there has to be a way to make sure that they’re protected on the battlefield. They have to be respected on the battlefield. So we have to make sure that there’s rules in place where parties to conflict. Yeah, of course, they protect the wounded and the sick. They don’t target the wounded and the sick, but they also have to protect the medical services and eventually humanitarian operations as well. And those are two really key words, respect and protect. And there’s a reason that that language is used. And that idea eventually led to the adoption in 1864 of the very first Geneva Convention. The very first Geneva Convention was essentially adopted in the run up to the writing of this book by Samit D’Chuna, the sort of founder of the International Committee of the Red Cross. And so why do I sort of focus and highlight this concept of respect and protect? Well, the idea of not targeting civilians kind of already existed at the time. There was the Liber Code. There was lots of different states that had in their military manuals, you know, civilians should be spared in armed conflict. And that’s actually not the only thing we’re talking about. It’s, we need to make sure because we are part of the reason that carnage is taking place. We need to make sure that the medical services still function. So when people are wounded and when people are sick and when people are in situations of vulnerability, that there is a system in place to protect them. We can’t just eight flout and ignore that, you know, that system. So that, that concept of respect and protect was really essential. And now to be able to respect and protect certain persons and objects, obviously it’s not just about identifying civilians or identifying who’s a combatant. You have to identify this kind of invisible protection. So it was very obvious even before the adoption of that first Geneva Convention, that there had to be, there had to be a way to identify, there had to be a way to identify those specific protections, you know, in complex environments. And that’s really what led to the adoption of the, the emblem, what we call the distinctive emblem of the Geneva Conventions or the Red Cross emblem, the Red Crescent emblem and eventually also the Red Crystal emblem. The purpose of the emblem is to identify a specific protection. The way I like to explain it sometimes is it’s a bit like a stop sign, or it’s a bit like a symbol of highway safety. Because if you have intersections and there’s a law, there’s a rule that says cars have to stop at that intersection, there has to be a way to tell that car that there is this rule. Because cars don’t just, well, I guess now with AI, maybe cars will know, but let’s say before that there had to be a way to say, to tell a driver, hey, you need to stop at this intersection. And the emblem is a little bit like that. It identifies to parties to conflict that this is a specifically protected person or a specifically protected object, and they have to be respected and protected. So it’s not just a question of not targeting them. It’s a question of ensuring that they’re able to undertake their work, despite the fact that a conflict is ongoing. And where does that bring us sort of in the modern world? Well, today, cyber operations have become a reality of armed conflict. And it’s not the first time that the reality kind of changes for the emblem. I mean, when the emblem was created, it was created as an armlet for the medical services. Eventually, it was expanded to ambulances. Then it found its way onto hospital ships or the top of hospitals or on planes. In the 1970s, something called the distinctive signal was created, specific radio and light signals for ships and planes. Because as the medical and humanitarian services expanded into new spaces, there had to be a way to identify those services in new spaces. So cyber operations today are a reality of armed conflict, but perhaps more importantly than that, people depend on digital infrastructure. You know, regular humans depend on digital infrastructure. The medical services then correspondingly also depend on digital infrastructure, and so do humanitarian operations. And when I say depend on digital infrastructure, I mean, of course, there’s an incredible socioeconomic value in, you know, information and communication technologies. But I’m specifically talking here about the most vulnerable, right? People who don’t have the privilege to sit and talk in Lillestrøm, Norway, right? I mean, in the earlier part of my career, I worked directly in situations of armed conflict on the field with persons that were displaced, with persons that had suffered horrific violations of international humanitarian law. And I can tell you that a lot of the time and a lot of the context that I work in, one of the first things people would ask for was not food or shelter or a bed or even water. The first thing people would ask for was connectivity. The first thing people would want was the ability to call their family members or to have some way to tell their family members, hey, I’m okay. Or they wanted to be able to know that their family members were okay. I mean, you can imagine, you know, a situation where suddenly a territory becomes occupied and connectivity is shut down and people outside of that territory have no way to know what’s happening to their families. Are they okay? Did they have to move? You know, are their houses destroyed? You know, all of those things, that connection is brought together with connectivity. So connectivity has become incredibly important for people. And then it’s also become incredibly important for the medical services and humanitarian operations. And the Digital Emblem Project is not about sort of stopping attacks against that, that as with the physical world, emblems are used and people are, you know, the medical services are unfortunately still killed. We have colleagues that are killed every single year, recently this year as well, several instances where our colleagues have been killed despite displaying the emblem. So, you know, it doesn’t stop intentional attacks like that. What it does is it identifies this specific protection because if you don’t wanna stop at a stop sign, you won’t stop. But the reality is, and it’s true for the emblem as well, the vast majority of people do stop at stop signs. And the vast majority of time, even though that’s not what we hear about and we can talk about that a little bit more later, the vast majority of time, the emblem does work. The problem is that people are, you know, in digital infrastructure, there is no way today to identify, well, what is actually protected. So the idea with the digital emblem is not to replace the physical emblem. The physical emblem exists. And as I’ve just said, it works. And we can certainly talk a little bit more about that and the nuances of that, but the physical emblem works. There is no desire to have a digital emblem that identifies what’s physical, because that already exists. If new technologies of warfare are developed, they have to be developed in a way that they can continue to respect the physical emblem. And there’s not going to be a new emblem that’s created to cater to new technologies of warfare. That’s not at all what the project is about. Rather, the project is about accepting the fact that digital infrastructure has become a key part of our work. It’s become a key part of the work of the medical services. And so there has to be a way to identify that digital infrastructure. That doesn’t exist yet. There’s no way to identify that digital infrastructure today. So that’s really sort of the key drive for this project. Now, after significant consultations with states, with the private sector, and within the Red Cross and Red Crescent movement, in spring of last year, and with really the great help of Microsoft and Chelsea, who you’ll hear from really shortly, we brought the digital emblem project to the Internet Engineering Task Force, which surely a lot of you already know, where the work on standards on a digital emblem will begin very soon. So our working group has been established. The very first working group meeting will be in July of this year, so in a few weeks. And of course, the ICRC is actively engaged in those discussions. I’ll just say a few words on some of the technical requirements without going over time. So just a couple more minutes on what we look for in terms of, you know, what are the needs for a digital emblem? And I’ll just preface this by saying, you know, I mentioned at the beginning, I’m a legal advisor. I’m not a technical person. Don’t worry, we do have a technical lead on the project. I’m the legal and policy lead. So I’ll really talk about this in sort of non-technical terms, but surely Chelsea can develop on this a little bit. So really when, you know, through those consultations that we’ve had with really a broad range of stakeholders, what we’ve identified is that the digital emblem should reflect as closely as possible the way the physical emblem works. And what do I mean by that? Well, first of all, the digital emblem needs to be decentralized. So with the physical emblem, all parties to conflict can use the emblem and they don’t have to ask for permission. So if a state has identified within its own structure, the medical services or a medical unit or a medical transport, if it wants to, it applies the emblem then to that unit or that structure or that object. And it doesn’t seek permission. And that’s also true for non-state parties to conflict. If they have medical services, they can of course also use the emblem. They don’t seek permission from anyone. There’s no centralised body that determines, yes, you can use the m emblem or you can’t use the emblem. That is not the role of the ICRC. We use the emblem. But for our own infrastructure, we don’t police anyone else using the emblem. And so, that’s also going to be true. That has to be true with the digital emblem. That it can’t be a sort of centralised body that says, yes, you can use the emblem here and you can’t use it here. And we’ve determined that this is protected and this is not. That’s for parties to conflict to determine. And then after, you know, there are rules on misuse and there are obligations to suppress misuse and potentially misuse, you know, certain misuses of the emblem might be a war crime. So there’s, you know, there’s different structures in place if the emblem is misused. But ultimately, it is decentralised in its use. Next is something that we call covert inspection. It’s not my favourite term because it sounds a lot more complicated than what it really is. The idea is, at least for me, the idea is that, you know, if you have, for example, a physical emblem on the roof of a hospital and you have a reconnaissance mission by an adversary, by a party to a conflict that wants to, you know, verify certain targets and so, and it spots the emblem on the roof of a building, then it knows that this building is protected by international humanitarian law as a specific protection under IHL, so it can attack the building. It also can destroy access to that building. That’s part of that notion of respect and protect. It’s not just about not targeting that thing. It’s about making sure that that thing continues to function despite your military operations. However, it doesn’t inform the adversary that, oh, someone has actually looked at the emblem, right? It doesn’t, because sometimes it might be the medical services of the armed forces. So, an adversary would not want to tell, you know, the enemy, let’s say, ah, yes, we are checking on whether you have an emblem or not, because that might then alert the adversary that an attack is incoming. And so basically the digital emblem needs to function the same way. It needs to be, it can’t tell the adversary that it’s being looked at. That’s the notion of covert inspection. It also has to be removable. So one key thing about the distinctive emblem, the physical emblem, that also has to be true with the digital emblem, is that it has to be something, a tool that you can place and remove based on your own security analysis of what’s useful. There are very rare, and it really is the really, really exceptional circumstances, but there are situations where the ICRC also removes the, you know, doesn’t use the emblem. And that’s also true for the medical services. There are situations where owing to the security, you know, the emblem is not used. And so I’ll just quickly wrap up and then we can explore some of this in broader discussion. But, you know, the digital emblem project is really a multilateral process. It’s seen a lot of success so far in terms of bringing together a lot of stakeholders. At the 34th International Conference of the Red Cross and the Red Crescent that took place last October. So this takes place once every four years, sort of like the Olympics of international humanitarian law. At this international conference that brings together all the states that are party to the Geneva Convention, a resolution was adopted by consensus to, you know, imagine the geopolitical context we’re in today. But a resolution was adopted encouraging the work on the digital emblem and continued work by the ICRC. So that was really helpful. A few weeks after that, the Cybersecurity Tech Accords adopted a digital emblem pledge. The Tech Accords, Chelsea will correct me if I’m wrong, is about 150 or 160 companies among the biggest tech companies in the world. So that was, you know, a really great step forward for us. And now we’re really continuing on the standardization process with the technical standardization of the emblem. And we are also working directly with states on, you know, what we call legal integration or formalization into both domestic and international humanitarian law. Of course, like the distinctive emblem, you know, this technical solution has to be created, but it also has to be integrated into international law. So that’s a big part of our work there. I’ll stop there. I hope that was a good introduction and pass it back over to you, Tejas.

Tejas Bharadwaj: Thanks for this brilliant presentation, Samir. It was really really comprehensive and also kind of answered most of the questions I look forward to, you know, asking But I also have this first question for you, Samit The Red Cross emblem, one of the most universally recognized symbols of protection, is kind of routinely ignored in today’s conflict Why should anyone believe that a digital emblem will fare any better? Is it simply just another idealistic gesture and a world where violations, not protections, dominate the headlines?

Samit D’Chuna: Yeah, yeah, that’s a really good question, Tejas, and I’m glad we sort of addressed that already at the beginning It’s true, and I mentioned it earlier, you know, there are today intentional attacks against the medical services. So against hospitals, against, like I said, colleagues members of the Red Cross and Red Crescent movement have been injured and killed and those are part of, you know, directly targeted operations by parties to armed conflict The distinctive emblem doesn’t make someone a good person And violations do take place. Now, the interesting thing is that what we see in the news are violations of international humanitarian law So when a hospital is attacked or when an ambulance is attacked that shows up in our feed, on our social media You know on the on traditional news and that’s a good thing It’s a good thing that we see that and it’s a good thing that we are irate when something like that happens But it’s important to remember that the vast majority of the time the emblem is respected Okay, so that that is certainly the experience, you know, that’s my personal experience That’s the experience of our colleagues That’s the experience of the last 160 years that the emblem does in fact work the vast majority of the time and when the emblem is not respected and it’s, you know, targeted, we hear about it and that is a violation of international humanitarian law This is a war crime. Directly targeting the medical services or a humanitarian operation is a war crime And so it’s good that that’s heard about but that should not take away from this incredible success story of the distinctive emblem because it was able to make tangible this

Chelsea Smethurst: and 20 global providers, that’s over a billion customers and citizens around the world that could be protected by these entities. So that’s sort of what I see, at least on the Microsoft perspective, is really the next step to scale this project beyond just a couple of core companies, a couple of core non-profits and a couple of international organizations around the globe.

Tejas Bharadwaj: No, that’s interesting. So we definitely need tech companies to be involved in this. Samit, from a legal and diplomatic standpoint, you do need commitments from the governments here, right? So what is ICRC looking to do and how can we kind of make this legally kind of binding kind of initiative? Is there progress there?

Samit D’Chuna: Yeah, you’re absolutely right. And I think you hit the nail on the head, Chelsea, when you said sort of global adoption. That’s also true in the diplomatic world as well. I mean, one of the key things for us is making sure that the emblem, in addition to being technically robust, is something that’s adopted by all states that are party to the Geneva Convention. So we’re talking about 196 states. That would sort of be the ideal. That’s what we’re going to work towards. Because, and I’ve already kind of hinted at it earlier, there are issues related to misuse of the emblem, to who can use the emblem, to how it’s used, that simply have to be integrated into international law because there need to be these common understandings of what the digital emblem is and how it’s respected and what happens when it’s not respected. That system needs to be in place and that’s going to be in place through adoption under international humanitarian law. So there’s various different strategies or means of incorporation into IHL that we’ve been discussing with states. We have an annual meeting with states to sort of update them on the technical development and then also move this conversation forward on integration into international law. So one possible solution is amending the annex. So there’s a technical annex of additional protocol one. So I didn’t talk about this, but there’s four Geneva Conventions and then three additional protocols to the conventions. The first additional protocol. has a technical annex already and that annex can be modified and so one solution is to modify the annex. Not all states are parties, so all states are parties to the Geneva Conventions but not all states are parties to the additional protocol so there need to be some sort of also subsidiary means of ensuring that states that are not party to additional protocol one can then still be included in this process but that’s one solution. Another solution would be to have a new protocol so the latest protocol, that third protocol of the Geneva Conventions was adopted in 2005. It created the red crystal emblem which is also a distinctive emblem now of the Geneva Conventions which is why I mentioned the red cross, the red crescent and the red crystal. So that another solution is to have a fourth protocol so an entirely new diplomatic process specifically on the digital emblem and then there’s also other possible solutions sort of more ad hoc solutions like what we call a unilateral declarations or others to ensure that states do make the digital emblem part of their sort of international legal obligations. Then there’s also you know I’ve talked about international law but it also has to be integrated into domestic systems so you know the Geneva Conventions are also integrated into domestic law and all the states that are party to Geneva Conventions and that work is also you know a lot of that work is assisted by national societies and so it was of course from the beginning important that national societies be on board with the project. There’s the Australian Red Cross that’s taking the lead on sort of working with the different national societies all over the world to be sure that they’re mobilized that once a technical solution is ready that this solution can also be integrated into domestic law because that’s not an expertise that comes from Geneva or elsewhere. I mean that’s an expertise that comes from each individual country and that’s kind of the work of of the national societies to integrate.

Tejas Bharadwaj: So right so you need technical protocols as well as legal protocols to make this possible. Chelsea how are you looking to kind of embed this digital emblem into products and digital infrastructure of countries?

Chelsea Smethurst: Yeah so if we think about the digital emblem as a digital , and we are talking about, instead of being painted on a hospital roof, it’s embedded in the internet infrastructure, let’s say like a hospital’s network, so that we know that it should be protected during armed conflict. To make this work, we really need a way to in sort of layman’s terms mark these systems online, right? And so there’s three technical options that are currently on the table right now. One is what we call a protected entity, right? So this is a protected entity, right? So you can have a flag on your website’s address, this is a protected entity or system during conflict. The second way we’re thinking about doing this as a community, not just Microsoft, right, is digital certificates. So think of these as like passports for websites. So this sort of certifies a certain identification that says, hey, this is a protected entity and provides a certain level of validity for that work. And then the third sort of way we’re considering as a group to do this, so these are essentially like labels that are behind the scenes on digital files, right, that can really sort of be flexible. You can apply certain sort of parameters to these things. And so these are sort of the three, I would say, technical solutions that are on the table to date. And then I think when we think about to answer your question on so what’s the challenges around these technical solutions that we’re considering as an industry, one, you know, is it secure enough to prevent misuse? So is somebody pretending to be a protected entity or not, right? This is a very real risk, technical and legal, that we need to really consider as we think about these technical solutions being deployed. I think the second thing I’ll say in terms of challenges is, and maybe this is even more important, right, is it simple enough for humanitarian organizations in developing countries to use? We really need to think about the lowest common denominator in this. And if it’s got to require a ton of money and a lot of technical resources, we’re not really achieving our goal, right, as what we’re trying to move for for the digital environment. So I think that’s the second sort of technical slash. legal and sort of civil society risk. And then I think third, and this is very true to somebody like myself, who has been very involved in sort of technical projects and policy for cyber for many years, is how do you standardize it, right, so that everyone from governments to tech companies to NGOs or non-profits can both identify it, deploy it, and respect it. And so those are challenges we need to overcome with. Three sort of challenges that are both technical, legal, and sort of civil in terms of like what

Tejas Bharadwaj: Right. Samit, do you have any comments on this?

Samit D’Chuna: Yeah, no, that was a good point about, you know, the lowest common denominator. You know, the interesting thing about the physical emblem is that, you know, there’s a lot of discussion among people who are very passionate about IHL and particularly the emblem about how, you know, where did the idea of having a red emblem come about. If you read the Geneva Convention, Article 38 of the first Geneva Convention essentially says an ode to Switzerland. So it’s basically an inversion of the flag. But there are some pretty important names that have done quite a bit of research on this and say that the reason the color red was chosen was actually because if you’re a wounded soldier, if you’re a war medic, then you actually always have the access to the color red and you always have access to white because soldiers usually carry the flag of surrender, which at the time was already a white flag. So you have a white flag and you have ability to make a red cross. And the idea was that everyone should be able to use the emblem and there shouldn’t be any sort of barriers to the creation of the emblem. So this is something that’s too complex or even that uses colors because we’re thinking about the 1800s colors that are sort of too nuanced or too complex, then it wouldn’t be respected. And so that’s why there’s this like bright red color. Again, there’s different stories about how it came up, but that’s quite a popular one. So, yeah, I think that you’ve raised some really important points that really reflect some of the thinking that was already there in the 1800s about what the emblem needs to be.

Tejas Bharadwaj: Right. So this kind of segues into an important question I wanted to ask. I mean, we don’t want the digital emblem initiative to be an initiative that’s kind of used by a few countries, right? We definitely want to scale it up. So what are the costs associated with its implementation, especially for developing in smaller countries? Is ICRC and the tech companies actively working on that? Chelsea, if you want to go ahead.

Chelsea Smethurst: Yeah, so I think there’s probably two maybe primary risks that we would associate with implementation challenges and hurdles there. I think one is how do you sort of minimize the increased exposure to protected entities? So if you are marking medical and humanitarian digital infrastructure, could you inadvertently make them more exposed to malicious actors? And I think Samit sort of talked about this in the introduction. And this is actually a question that I have personally grappled with on this project, working with us for like the last year and a half is so what do we want to achieve here? Right. And I think the acknowledgement that it’s what you hear in the news is actually what you don’t hear in the news. That is a massive accomplishment in this task is something that we’re really aiming for here. And it’s a really helpful like I think reframing in perspective of the significance that the impact that this product could actually have in the digital infrastructure world. So I think that’s one. I think, too, another risk that we’ve got to think about in terms of hurdles to overcome and costs is, you know, how do you like mitigate the misuse or the abuse of a digital? And I think this is some challenging there’s there’s both like legal and like technical legitimate concerns in this domain. Ultimately, what we’re trying to do, and we’re doing this through the IETF, so the Internet Engineering Task Force, is how do you make a standard that is verifiable, revocable and audible? And this is very true in many cybersecurity domains. But these are three sort of core competencies that you want a standard to have, and that can help really sort of scale it and mitigate that misuse. So great question to ask. I don’t know if Samit you have sort of thoughts, too.

Samit D’Chuna: I think that was a great answer. I mean, I think, you know, on these two sides, as you’ve mentioned. So on the question of sort of increased exposure, you know, this has been since the beginning of the project, really a big part of our conversation with with different stakeholders, including sort of cyber actors. And what we understand is that a lot of times. Cyber Actors don’t know whether certain infrastructure is protected, but if they are looking for certain critical infrastructure, tools already exist today that are quite effective in finding them. So, we moved forward much more quickly on this project when we understood that risk to exposure, it exists, but it’s not very high, and the way to sort of mitigate that is through these technical discussions that take place at the IETF and elsewhere to indeed make sure that that risk is minimized as much as possible. And as I mentioned, the emblem is always revocable, right? So, if at any time there’s an entity that thinks that the use of the emblem poses more risks than benefits, then it can be removed, right? Because as I mentioned, it doesn’t replace other cybersecurity tools, it’s not an antivirus, it’s not a firewall, it identifies something as specifically protected, and in that sense, it’s a tool, and it doesn’t replace those other mechanisms. And then, on the question of misuse, I mean, this is why, of course, integration in international humanitarian law is so important. As I said, what we don’t see, the violations that we don’t hear about, or rather the violations that don’t take place, that’s really the key for us, right? Because when we talk about something that’s been attacked, and now a sort of a criminal justice process that takes place after, or we hear about it in the news, or there’s this frustration, or there’s, you know, as I said, that that’s really important, but that’s already a step too far, because what we want is for those attacks not to take place. And when discussions of the distinctive emblem took place 160 years ago, there was already this discussion of, you know, what if the emblem is misused? What’s going to happen if it starts being used on tanks and on all kinds of other things that are not specifically protected? That concern was already there, but systems were put in place, like the work of the ICRC, the confidential bilateral dialogue, you know, the fact that parties to conflict have to be trained in international humanitarian law. We’ve talked about legal integration, and those things are really all quite important. Maybe one thing I would add to that is that the digital emblem requires trust. I talked about the big success with the physical emblem, the Red Cross, Crescent and Crystal. The reason the emblem works so well is the system of trust that exists. The medical services and humanitarian organizations, certain humanitarian organizations, can trust that if they use the emblem, it’s respected. The parties to armed conflict can, the vast majority of the time, see an emblem and trust that that entity, whatever they’re looking at, personnel or object, they can trust that that is, in fact, a protected entity. As new stakeholders join this process, like technology companies, technology companies can also trust that the emblem is something that works and that’s respected. That’s a big key to this project. If it’s going to be successful, it has to reflect, it has to mimic what’s happened with the physical emblem, which is that it has to be a symbol of trust.

Tejas Bharadwaj: Chelsea, any final remarks?

Chelsea Smethurst: Yeah, so I think I’ll say when I think about success for the digital emblem, right, it’s not any one single milestone. I think it’s probably a layered approach across multiple dimensions. We’ve mentioned this a couple of times, right? So technical standardization, legal recognition. And then finally, what’s that multi-stakeholder global adoption? And so, Simi, you mentioned trust. And I think that underpins any and all things that I sort of say in the next sort of segment. Again, I’m focused more on sort of the technical capabilities and implementations here from the Microsoft side. I think, one, let’s go back to technical standardization. I would say as a cohort, we’ve made significant progress here already. So in July at IETF, so the Internet Engineering Task Force, they’re already going to be launching a working group that will be sort of developing verifiable, interoperable and secure standard right across engineering standards bodies. Second, the legal recognition, right? This is something where we’ve been able to work with closely the ICRC and our other sort of non-profit civil society partners to really understand what are the international sort of legal problems and challenges that we as like a company will need to actually incorporate in this? And this is not our domain expertise, right? And so making sure that we’re supporting from a technical and operations perspective, but then working to sort of move towards that international humanitarian law piece has been really essential and critical. And that’s not something we could have done without the ICRC. And then I think finally, and probably maybe most importantly, is that widespread adoption and deployment of the digital emblem, right? So, you know, the last 12 months to date, you know, it’s been a very heavily sort of core exercise, at least with Microsoft and some smaller industry players. You mentioned the Cybersecurity Tech Accord, which is a large sort of industry body committed to cybersecurity norms of over 160 members. And so I think how do we take this emblem and then move it into sort of a global norm would be a very powerful and significant next step for this work. So thank.

Tejas Bharadwaj: I think we just have around 15 minutes, so I’ll open the floor for some questions from the audience. We also have some online questions, but if the audience here have any questions, please feel free to raise your hand. I will identify you. Can you introduce yourself?

Audience: Jure Bokovoy, Finnish Green Party. My question is mostly to Samit. We’ve talked quite largely today about the trust in the emblem and the malicious actors targeting it. How can we even have trust in the emblem in the end, when over the last three years there have been large signatories to the Geneva Conventions, basically completely disregarding its functions? I mean, Russia has bombed multiple hospitals and humanitarian infrastructure in Ukraine, and Israel has bombed 36 hospitals in Gaza, as well as other humanitarian infrastructure in camps. And there hasn’t really been much actual international law punishment towards it, outside of labels put by the ICJ and other organizations, which are not really respected by either the US or the other superpowers, to actually put out the punishment. So how can we trust in the emblem, and what is being done to, I guess, negate this double standard?

Tejas Bharadwaj: Sure. Samit, do you want to answer that?

Samit D’Chuna: Yeah, I’m happy to say that. So thank you so much for the question. I mean, I think it’s a really important question. I’ll take it a little bit more broader than just the emblem, because I think what your question gets to is really more the heart of international humanitarian law. I mean, there’s this body of law, and as you suggest, there are situations where international humanitarian law is not respected, and it’s not just frustrating, I mean, it’s horrific, because people die as a result. I’ll just preface this by saying, you know, as a legal advisor of the International Committee of the Red Cross, I won’t talk about any specific ongoing conflict. We have a confidential bilateral dialogue with parties to conflict. So the states that you mentioned, the ICRC has dialogue with those states. And these are, you know, the key topics that we talk about. So I won’t talk about any specific context. But, you know, I do want to come back to something you mentioned, which is punishment, right? And what punishment assumes is that a violation has already taken place. And that for us is the key, because, of course, that is important. It is important that, you know, international criminal law functions, that there are that there is punishment when violations take place. But it’s not the be all end all of compliance. And I think that’s where a lot of us go wrong on this question, because we assume that, you know, a crime has taken place. And, yeah, unfortunately, in international law, it’s not always punished. But that doesn’t mean that that’s the only way to ensure compliance. So, for example, under international humanitarian law, there is obligations for training on all levels of the armed forces from the individual soldier to the highest level of a commander. Those obligations teach you that it is a violation of international humanitarian law to respect a manifestly unlawful order. If you are ordered to bomb a hospital, you cannot say I am just following orders. That argument died over 80 years ago in international law. So if you committed if you know that you’re committing a violation of international humanitarian law, you must stop, regardless of the orders that you’ve you’ve got from above. As I mentioned, we have a confidential bilateral dialogue. There are several humanitarian organizations outside of the ICRC that also work with parties to conflict, have different modes of actions, highlight violations that take place, highlight when certain infrastructure is protected, where it is, make noise about where there are population movements and things like that. There’s a whole set of ways that ensure compliance with international humanitarian law. Despite the fact that there are all of these compliance mechanisms, violations still take place. That’s true in domestic law as well. People commit crimes, even though there’s this entire legal system in place. Now, under domestic law, there’s an executive, a singular executive body, usually in each state, that then ensures, you know, punishment for certain crimes. But that doesn’t mean that the vast majority of human beings in a country or on the planet respect the law because they’re afraid of going to jail. The vast majority of people respect the rules because it’s the decent thing to do. And so for the minority that are indecent, well, yeah, there are systems in place. But again, I would say, the vast majority of times, the rules are respected. I’ll just say one really interesting thing. There was a study that was done a few years ago, like five, between five and 10 years ago, called the Roots of Restraint. It was a study that looked at what actually makes individuals respect international humanitarian law and how do people feel about the usefulness of international humanitarian law. And the fascinating thing is that in countries that are affected by armed conflict, significantly affected by armed conflict, countries like the Democratic Republic of the Congo, countries like Colombia and others. If you just polled regular people, they said that IHL was incredibly important and that it works. It works. And then if you polled countries like Western countries, Canada, Western European countries. Again, this was done five, 10 years ago. Maybe the answers would be a little bit different today. But at the time, those countries said, well, international law doesn’t work because they’re hearing about violations. All they hear about are violations, whereas it’s people on the ground that see the vast majority of the time rules being respected. I’ll tell you a personal story. You know, I worked in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. One of the things I worked on is recruitment of children, because unfortunately, a lot of children are recruited into armed groups. I’ve met with commanders of groups and There are a lot of ways that international humanitarian law works, but there are invisible ways. It’s not just a question of punishment, although that’s also very important. Thank you.

Tejas Bharadwaj: Thank you. That was a really interesting answer. So, to the lady on the right here.

Audience: Yeah, hello. My name is Mia Kuhlewin. I’m also working in the Internet Engineering Task Force on transport protocols, so I’m very well aware of the work there. And thank you for this presentation. It was very informative and comprehensive, so I really enjoyed that. And I think it’s really nice to see that in the IETF, also these different communities and different stakeholders come together and we are now taking up the work. So, that’s a success in itself, and it’s nice to see that it’s working. You talked a lot, I’m just curious, during the discussion you talked a lot about the risk of exposure, and we all know that also the risk of cyberattacks is increasing more and more. So, just having, and you said this already, just having the emblem will not protect somebody from attacks. So, are you looking at these two angles together? Like, are you also trying to increase the protection of these digital assets and increase how we handle cyberattacks and so on? Or do you think this is like two separate things that need to be worked on separately?

Tejas Bharadwaj: Chelsea, you want to take that?

Chelsea Smethurst: Samit, do you want to answer first from the legal considerations, and then I’ll approach the cyber angle. I think that’s a really great question, by the way.

Samit D’Chuna: Yeah, no, I completely agree. So, yeah, there’s different aspects, right? So, I mean, as I mentioned, the digital emblem is one part of it, It is so essential to victims of armed conflict, of natural disasters and other situations of violence. So that’s a key aspect. And then another aspect that is kind of new for us as well is working with certain cyber actors that we haven’t worked with before. So, you know, we consider, we look at the concept of, let’s say a party to a conflict quite broadly, right? So you can potentially have cyber actors that are sort of either part of the armed forces or belonging to the armed forces that might also be an interlocutor for the ICRC, but not one that we’ve traditionally had because we’ve traditionally worked with arms, like traditional arms carriers, but we are increasingly trying to work with sort of these more non-traditional, let’s say actors or hacker groups. And last year, the ICRC published something called Eight Rules for Hackers. It got quite a bit of traction. Maybe some of you have heard about it. It was kind of published in the BBC and elsewhere, which was basically rules of international humanitarian law that apply to cyber actors when they are engaging in acts as part of a conflict. So yeah, there’s definitely, you know, there’s this entire gamut of work that we’re doing in this sector and all of it towards the same goal of increasing ultimately the protection for victims of armed conflict and others.

Chelsea Smethurst: Yeah, and so the way I think about this question that you’ve asked, and I’m the cyber person up at the table, and so this is something I’ve grappled with quite a lot in the early stages of this project. And I would say it’s half legal exercises and it’s a half cyber exercises. And what do I mean by that is if you look at the requirements half of them are legal. So how do we marry these technical standards to international? , and they’re based on security requirements. This is the traditional cyber security bread and butter domain where we operate as practitioners. I think the way to think about this is do the security requirements support ultimately what we’re trying to achieve in terms of the legal requirements rather than drive first with the security requirements and then come back on the back end with legal requirements. I think it’s a very important question because we’re not driving this as a cyber security initiative, rather it is how do we develop security controls to support the legal requirements that we really need to meet here. So that’s how I think about that distinction in your question.

Tejas Bharadwaj: Right. So we have exactly about four minutes, 45 seconds. So I would take both these questions together and, you know, let the speakers answer that. So the gentleman on the right first, you can quickly, you know. Yes.

Audience: Thank you. Thank you very much. We have heard a lot about the red cross as a protective sign, but there are a few others such as the three orange dots and the white flag, of course. Are there any particular measures that need to be taken for, like, the different type of protective signs, or can they all be handled in the same way in a digital sphere?

Tejas Bharadwaj: Right. So lady on the left here.

Audience: Thank you very much. I would like to start with you. You mentioned the importance of confidential dialogue with states. However, during armed escalations, non-state actors, particularly platforms like Meta and X, play a significant role in shaping narratives and examination of non-state actors’ lives withward. Consequently, the use of leader-to-leader communication in the rural areas is far from better than the most prevailing modality. So, if we consider other steps taken intervention on behalf of these platforms. We documented those things during the India-Pakistan escalation. My question is, does the ICRC engage in confidential dialogue with those companies during times of conflict? And if so, how do you ensure that their algorithmic amplification does not exacerbate the humanitarian catastrophe?

Tejas Bharadwaj: So Samit, if you can go ahead and then Chelsea can follow, I guess.

Samit D’Chuna: Sure, yeah. Thank you so much for the questions. So great question about the different emblems. So you know, when we started our work, of course, we started on the Red Cross Crescent and Crystal. And in the interest of time, I’ve kind of kept the conversation to that. But you’re right that there’s other IHL emblems that exist, and also part of our work. So even though we’re leading this on the Red Cross Crescent and Crystal, there’s of course, as you mentioned, the three orange dots with the three orange circles, rather, which are the dangerous forces emblem. So it represents a danger. So dangerous forces, if it’s attacked, it would release, you know, certain, you know, yeah, what we call dangerous forces, essentially, that would, you know, cause significant harm to the civilian population. So nuclear generating facilities, dams and dikes. So that’s one emblem. There’s another emblem for civil defense, which is a similar emblem, like maybe some of you have heard of the White Helmets in Syria and elsewhere. I mean, there’s civil defense now in the different conflicts that you see around the world that provide certain services. You know, in the event of an armed conflict, they’re also have a, you know, they also have a specific protection under international humanitarian law, and they have an emblem. And then there’s also, you know, what’s colloquially known as the Blue Shield emblem, or the emblem of UNESCO, the cultural property emblem, which is also an emblem that identifies cultural property and also has a different, you know, special protection under international humanitarian law. The key is that the protections are different for each of the emblems. They’re not exactly the same protection. And of course, they’re not for the same thing. So we do have to think about what that means. We’ve been working quite a bit with UNESCO and what’s called an organization called Blue Shield International They also participate in the IETF discussion. So they also bring that in to the conversation. So that’s quite key So so yes, we have thought about the different emblems on harmful and firm on the question of working with tech companies Yeah, I mean we we try to have a dialogue with everyone when we have a dialogue. It is a confidential dialogue We’re really happy to provide assistance particularly in navigating international humanitarian law, which I know can become quite complex So we do talk about that The thing about IHL is it actually doesn’t turn on whether information is true or not necessarily We have a notion called harmful information where the certain spread of information violates IHL And so of course that’s part of our dialogue as well

Tejas Bharadwaj: Chelsea quickly to wrap up

Chelsea Smethurst: I’ll just say it’s been a pleasure being here and presenting on IGF with my partners to me and Tejas Thank you for joining us today and just really encourage others in the industry and civil society to get involved in this work That’s really where it needs to go is to scale beyond just a couple of small companies So a pleasure to be here today and thank you all for your thoughtful questions

Tejas Bharadwaj: Yeah, thank you very much for the audience and also people who have tuned in online and please feel free to ask the speakers You know after the session ends, you know, yeah, thank you so much You Outro Friday Night Live at Chief Stadium USA Provignment at Leeuwin Basketballruce Friday Night Live at Chief Stadium USA Composition by Brandon Holaria

Agreement points

Digital emblem must balance security with accessibility for global implementation

Speakers

– Samit D’Chuna
– Chelsea Smethurst
– Tejas Bharadwaj

Arguments

Digital emblem must be secure enough to prevent misuse while simple enough for developing countries to implement

Need for adoption by all 196 Geneva Convention signatory states for universal recognition

Implementation costs and complexity must be minimized for developing countries and smaller organizations

Summary

All speakers agree that the digital emblem must be technically robust enough to prevent misuse while remaining accessible and affordable for humanitarian organizations in resource-constrained environments globally

Topics

Development | Cybersecurity | Infrastructure

Multi-stakeholder approach essential for digital emblem success

Speakers

– Samit D’Chuna
– Chelsea Smethurst

Arguments

Digital emblem requires integration into international humanitarian law through various mechanisms including protocol amendments

Success requires technical standardization, legal recognition, and widespread global adoption across multiple dimensions

Cybersecurity Tech Accords with 160+ companies adopted digital emblem pledge for global industry support

Summary

Both speakers emphasize that success requires coordinated efforts across legal, technical, and industry domains with broad international participation

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Economic | Cybersecurity

Technical solutions must support legal requirements rather than drive them

Speakers

– Samit D’Chuna
– Chelsea Smethurst

Arguments

Digital emblem should mirror physical emblem functionality while adapting to cyber warfare realities

Technical solutions must support legal requirements rather than drive them

Summary

Both speakers agree that the project should be guided primarily by legal and humanitarian requirements, with technical solutions designed to support these goals

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Cybersecurity

Risk mitigation through technical design and legal frameworks

Speakers

– Samit D’Chuna
– Chelsea Smethurst

Arguments

Risk of increased exposure to malicious actors must be balanced against protection benefits

Need for verifiable, revocable, and auditable technical standards through IETF working group

Digital emblem requires decentralized use, covert inspection capability, and removability features

Summary

Both speakers acknowledge risks exist but can be mitigated through careful technical design that incorporates security principles and maintains flexibility for users

Topics

Cybersecurity | Infrastructure | Legal and regulatory

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize that trust is fundamental to the emblem system’s effectiveness and that widespread adoption is necessary to replicate the success of the physical emblem

Speakers

– Samit D’Chuna
– Chelsea Smethurst

Arguments

Digital emblem success depends on building same system of trust that exists with physical emblem

Project needs to scale beyond core companies to achieve global norm status

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights | Economic

Both express skepticism about the effectiveness of emblem systems given current violations and enforcement challenges in international humanitarian law

Speakers

– Tejas Bharadwaj
– Audience

Arguments

Physical emblem routinely ignored in today’s conflict raises questions about digital emblem’s potential effectiveness

Major Geneva Convention signatories have targeted hospitals and humanitarian infrastructure without meaningful punishment

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Both recognize the need to engage with non-traditional actors in the digital space, including tech companies and cyber actors, as part of humanitarian protection efforts

Speakers

– Samit D’Chuna
– Audience

Arguments

ICRC engages in confidential bilateral dialogue with both state and non-state actors including cyber groups

Platform companies’ role in conflict narrative shaping requires engagement on algorithmic amplification issues

Topics

Cybersecurity | Legal and regulatory | Human rights

Unexpected consensus

Integration of multiple emblem types beyond Red Cross into digital sphere

Speakers

– Samit D’Chuna
– Audience

Arguments

Digital emblem work extends beyond Red Cross to include other IHL emblems like dangerous forces and cultural property symbols

Integration with existing internet protocols and standards presents both opportunities and challenges

Explanation

There was unexpected consensus that the digital emblem project should encompass all types of protective emblems under international humanitarian law, not just medical emblems, showing broader scope than initially apparent

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Infrastructure | Sociocultural

Acknowledgment of emblem system limitations while maintaining support

Speakers

– Samit D’Chuna
– Tejas Bharadwaj
– Audience

Arguments

Physical emblem works because vast majority of time it is respected, violations make headlines but represent minority of cases

Physical emblem routinely ignored in today’s conflict raises questions about digital emblem’s potential effectiveness

Double standards in international law enforcement undermine trust in emblem system

Explanation

Despite raising serious concerns about violations and enforcement, there was unexpected consensus that the emblem system still has value and should be extended to digital realm, showing pragmatic acceptance of imperfect but useful tools

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Overall assessment

Summary

Strong consensus exists among speakers on technical requirements, multi-stakeholder approach, and need for global accessibility, with shared recognition of both opportunities and challenges

Consensus level

High level of consensus on implementation approach and technical requirements, with constructive skepticism about effectiveness challenges that strengthens rather than undermines the initiative. The agreement spans legal, technical, and practical dimensions, suggesting robust foundation for moving forward despite acknowledged limitations of current international humanitarian law enforcement.

Different viewpoints

Effectiveness of emblem systems given current violations

Speakers

– Samit D’Chuna
– Tejas Bharadwaj
– Audience

Arguments

Physical emblem works because vast majority of time it is respected, violations make headlines but represent minority of cases

Physical emblem routinely ignored in today’s conflict raises questions about digital emblem’s potential effectiveness

Major Geneva Convention signatories have targeted hospitals and humanitarian infrastructure without meaningful punishment

Summary

Samit argues the physical emblem is largely successful with violations being exceptional cases that receive disproportionate media attention, while Tejas and audience members express skepticism about effectiveness given high-profile violations and lack of enforcement

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Primary mechanisms for ensuring compliance with international humanitarian law

Speakers

– Samit D’Chuna
– Audience

Arguments

International humanitarian law compliance relies on training, bilateral dialogue, and moral obligation, not just punishment

Double standards in international law enforcement undermine trust in emblem system

Summary

Samit emphasizes multiple compliance mechanisms beyond punishment including training and dialogue, while audience members focus on the lack of meaningful enforcement and punishment as undermining the entire system

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights

Relationship between digital emblem and cybersecurity measures

Speakers

– Chelsea Smethurst
– Audience

Arguments

Technical solutions must support legal requirements rather than drive them

Digital emblem relationship to broader cybersecurity protection measures needs clarification

Summary

Chelsea argues the digital emblem should be primarily a legal tool with technical solutions supporting legal requirements, while audience members question whether it should be integrated with broader cybersecurity protection measures

Topics

Cybersecurity | Legal and regulatory | Infrastructure

Unexpected differences

Role of platform companies in conflict situations

Speakers

– Samit D’Chuna
– Audience

Arguments

ICRC engages in confidential bilateral dialogue with both state and non-state actors including cyber groups

Platform companies’ role in conflict narrative shaping requires engagement on algorithmic amplification issues

Explanation

While both acknowledge the need to engage with tech platforms, there’s an unexpected gap in how they view the scope of engagement – Samit focuses on traditional IHL compliance dialogue, while audience members raise concerns about algorithmic amplification of conflict narratives, which represents a newer dimension of platform responsibility that wasn’t fully addressed

Topics

Sociocultural | Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion revealed moderate disagreements primarily around the effectiveness and enforcement of international humanitarian law, with speakers generally aligned on goals but differing on implementation approaches and risk assessments

Disagreement level

The disagreements are substantive but not fundamental – all parties support the digital emblem concept but have different perspectives on its likely effectiveness, implementation priorities, and relationship to broader cybersecurity measures. The skepticism from moderator and audience members serves as a healthy counterbalance to the more optimistic views of the project leaders, highlighting real challenges that need to be addressed for successful implementation.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize that trust is fundamental to the emblem system’s effectiveness and that widespread adoption is necessary to replicate the success of the physical emblem

Speakers

– Samit D’Chuna
– Chelsea Smethurst

Arguments

Digital emblem success depends on building same system of trust that exists with physical emblem

Project needs to scale beyond core companies to achieve global norm status

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights | Economic

Both express skepticism about the effectiveness of emblem systems given current violations and enforcement challenges in international humanitarian law

Speakers

– Tejas Bharadwaj
– Audience

Arguments

Physical emblem routinely ignored in today’s conflict raises questions about digital emblem’s potential effectiveness

Major Geneva Convention signatories have targeted hospitals and humanitarian infrastructure without meaningful punishment

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Both recognize the need to engage with non-traditional actors in the digital space, including tech companies and cyber actors, as part of humanitarian protection efforts

Speakers

– Samit D’Chuna
– Audience

Arguments

ICRC engages in confidential bilateral dialogue with both state and non-state actors including cyber groups

Platform companies’ role in conflict narrative shaping requires engagement on algorithmic amplification issues

Topics

Cybersecurity | Legal and regulatory | Human rights

Key takeaways

The Digital Emblem Initiative aims to create a universally-recognized symbol for protecting digital infrastructure used by medical and humanitarian services during armed conflicts, mirroring the success of the physical Red Cross emblem

Three technical implementation approaches are being considered: protected entity flags on website addresses, digital certificates as ‘passports for websites’, and metadata labels on digital files

The digital emblem must be decentralized (no central authority controls usage), support covert inspection (can be checked without alerting the protected entity), and be removable based on security analysis

Significant diplomatic progress has been achieved with consensus adoption at the 34th International Conference of Red Cross and Red Crescent, and support from 160+ tech companies through the Cybersecurity Tech Accords

The physical Red Cross emblem has been successful for 160 years because it works the vast majority of the time – violations make headlines but represent a minority of cases

Success requires building a system of trust similar to the physical emblem, with technical standardization through IETF, legal integration into international humanitarian law, and widespread global adoption

The initiative must be simple and cost-effective enough for developing countries and smaller organizations to implement, avoiding creating barriers to access

Digital emblem work extends beyond Red Cross to include other IHL emblems like dangerous forces, civil defense, and cultural property symbols, each requiring tailored protection approaches

Resolutions and action items

IETF working group will launch in July to develop verifiable, interoperable and secure technical standards for the digital emblem

ICRC will continue annual meetings with states to update on technical development and advance integration into international humanitarian law

Legal integration will be pursued through multiple mechanisms including amending Additional Protocol I technical annex, creating a new fourth protocol, or unilateral state declarations

Australian Red Cross will lead work with national societies worldwide to integrate digital emblem into domestic legal systems

Industry scaling beyond core companies is needed to achieve global norm status through broader tech sector engagement

Continued confidential bilateral dialogue with both state and non-state actors, including cyber groups, to ensure compliance and proper implementation

Unresolved issues

How to effectively address skepticism about digital emblem effectiveness given current violations of physical emblem protections in ongoing conflicts

Balancing security requirements to prevent misuse while maintaining simplicity for resource-constrained organizations in developing countries

Managing the risk of increased exposure to malicious actors when marking protected digital infrastructure

Determining the relationship between digital emblem protection and broader cybersecurity measures – whether they should be integrated or remain separate approaches

Addressing the role of social media platforms and their algorithmic amplification in conflict situations and how this relates to digital emblem protection

Ensuring universal adoption across all 196 Geneva Convention signatory states despite varying technical capabilities and political positions

Resolving double standards in international law enforcement that undermine trust in the emblem system

Clarifying how different types of IHL emblems (Red Cross, dangerous forces, cultural property) will be technically implemented and distinguished in the digital sphere

Suggested compromises

Digital emblem designed as a tool that can be removed if security analysis shows risks outweigh benefits, maintaining flexibility for protected entities

Multiple technical implementation pathways being developed simultaneously to accommodate different organizational needs and capabilities

Phased approach starting with core stakeholders and gradually scaling to achieve global adoption rather than requiring universal implementation from the start

Integration into international law through multiple mechanisms to accommodate states that are not party to all Geneva Convention protocols

Balancing security and accessibility by developing standards that are ‘secure enough to prevent misuse’ while ‘simple enough for humanitarian organizations in developing countries to use’

The Red Cross emblem, one of the most universally recognized symbols of protection, is kind of routinely ignored in today’s conflict. Why should anyone believe that a digital emblem will fare any better? Is it simply just another idealistic gesture and a world where violations, not protections, dominate the headlines?

Speaker

Tejas Bharadwaj

Reason

This comment cuts to the heart of the initiative’s credibility by directly challenging the fundamental premise. It forces the discussion beyond technical implementation to address the elephant in the room – whether symbolic protection has any real-world efficacy when violations make headlines daily.

Impact

This question fundamentally shifted the discussion from ‘how’ to implement the digital emblem to ‘why’ it would work at all. It prompted Samit to provide crucial context about the emblem’s actual success rate and introduced the key insight that violations make news precisely because they’re exceptional, not routine. This reframing became central to understanding the project’s value proposition.

The vast majority of the time the emblem is respected… what we see in the news are violations of international humanitarian law… it’s important to remember that the vast majority of the time the emblem does in fact work

Speaker

Samit D’Chuna

Reason

This insight challenges our perception bias by explaining that we hear about violations precisely because they’re newsworthy exceptions, not the norm. It reframes the entire discussion about the emblem’s effectiveness by highlighting the invisible successes versus visible failures.

Impact

This comment provided the foundational justification for the entire digital emblem project. It shifted the conversation from defensive to confident, establishing that the physical emblem’s success model could be replicated digitally. Chelsea later referenced this insight when discussing the project’s goals, showing how it became a cornerstone argument.

How can we even have trust in the emblem in the end, when over the last three years there have been large signatories to the Geneva Conventions, basically completely disregarding its functions? … And there hasn’t really been much actual international law punishment towards it

Speaker

Jure Bokovoy (Audience)

Reason

This comment represents the skeptical voice of many observers who see high-profile violations and question the entire system’s credibility. It forces a deeper examination of how international humanitarian law actually works beyond punishment mechanisms.

Impact

This challenge prompted Samit to provide one of the most profound explanations of how international law actually functions – not primarily through punishment but through training, dialogue, and the fundamental decency of most actors. It led to the powerful personal anecdote about the ‘Roots of Restraint’ study, showing how those actually affected by conflict view IHL’s effectiveness differently than distant observers.

The reason the color red was chosen was actually because if you’re a wounded soldier, if you’re a war medic, then you actually always have the access to the color red and you always have access to white because soldiers usually carry the flag of surrender… everyone should be able to use the emblem and there shouldn’t be any sort of barriers to the creation of the emblem

Speaker

Samit D’Chuna

Reason

This historical insight reveals the profound practical wisdom embedded in the original emblem design – accessibility and universality were built into the system from the beginning. It connects 19th-century thinking to modern digital challenges.

Impact

This comment directly influenced the technical discussion by reinforcing Chelsea’s point about the ‘lowest common denominator’ requirement. It provided historical validation for making the digital emblem accessible to humanitarian organizations in developing countries, showing how practical accessibility has always been central to the emblem’s success.

If you are marking medical and humanitarian digital infrastructure, could you inadvertently make them more exposed to malicious actors?… what you hear in the news is actually what you don’t hear in the news. That is a massive accomplishment

Speaker

Chelsea Smethurst

Reason

This comment acknowledges a genuine technical and strategic dilemma while reframing success metrics. It shows sophisticated thinking about unintended consequences while embracing the counterintuitive idea that ‘not making news’ is the goal.

Impact

This comment bridged the technical and humanitarian perspectives, showing how the technology sector is grappling with the same fundamental questions about visibility and protection. It reinforced Samit’s earlier point about invisible successes and helped establish shared understanding between the legal and technical approaches.

We’re not driving this as a cyber security initiative, rather it is how do we develop security controls to support the legal requirements that we really need to meet here

Speaker

Chelsea Smethurst

Reason

This comment reveals a crucial philosophical approach – subordinating technical capabilities to humanitarian law requirements rather than the reverse. It shows how the project maintains its humanitarian focus despite technical complexity.

Impact

This clarification helped distinguish the digital emblem project from typical cybersecurity initiatives, maintaining focus on humanitarian protection rather than technical security. It reinforced that this is fundamentally a humanitarian law project that happens to use technology, not a tech project with humanitarian applications.

Overall assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by systematically addressing the fundamental challenges to the digital emblem’s credibility and feasibility. The conversation evolved from initial skepticism about symbolic protection in a world of visible violations, through historical and empirical evidence of the physical emblem’s success, to sophisticated technical and legal considerations for digital implementation. The most impactful moments came when speakers reframed common assumptions – that violations make news precisely because they’re exceptional, that international law works primarily through training and dialogue rather than punishment, and that technical solutions must serve humanitarian law rather than drive it. This progression created a compelling narrative arc from doubt to understanding, establishing both the necessity and feasibility of the digital emblem initiative.

How can trust in the digital emblem be maintained when major signatories to the Geneva Conventions are disregarding physical emblems and targeting hospitals and humanitarian infrastructure without meaningful international punishment?

Speaker

Jure Bokovoy (Finnish Green Party audience member)

Explanation

This addresses a fundamental challenge to the entire premise of the digital emblem project – if physical emblems are being ignored by major powers, why would digital emblems be respected?

Should cybersecurity protection measures be developed alongside the digital emblem, or are these separate initiatives that need to be worked on independently?

Speaker

Mia Kuhlewin (IETF transport protocols worker)

Explanation

This explores whether the digital emblem should be part of a broader cybersecurity framework or remain focused solely on identification and legal protection

How should different types of protective emblems (three orange dots, white flag, cultural property emblems) be handled in the digital sphere – can they use the same technical approach or do they need different measures?

Speaker

Unnamed audience member

Explanation

This addresses the scalability and technical requirements for implementing multiple types of protective emblems digitally, each with different legal protections

Does the ICRC engage in confidential dialogue with social media platforms during conflicts, and how do they ensure algorithmic amplification doesn’t exacerbate humanitarian catastrophes?

Speaker

Unnamed audience member

Explanation

This explores the ICRC’s engagement with non-state tech actors and their role in information warfare during conflicts

What are the specific technical implementation details for embedding digital emblems into different types of digital infrastructure across various countries and organizations?

Speaker

Tejas Bharadwaj (moderator)

Explanation

This addresses the practical challenges of global deployment and standardization across diverse technical environments

How will the costs and technical barriers be minimized for developing countries and smaller organizations to implement the digital emblem?

Speaker

Tejas Bharadwaj (moderator)

Explanation

This addresses equity and accessibility concerns to ensure the digital emblem doesn’t create a two-tiered system of protection

What specific legal mechanisms will be used to integrate the digital emblem into international humanitarian law – protocol amendments, new protocols, or other approaches?

Speaker

Tejas Bharadwaj (moderator)

Explanation

This addresses the concrete legal pathways needed to make the digital emblem legally binding and enforceable

How will the digital emblem project scale beyond the current core group of companies and organizations to achieve global adoption?

Speaker

Chelsea Smethurst (Microsoft)

Explanation

This addresses the challenge of moving from a pilot project with a few major tech companies to widespread global implementation

Summary

This discussion focused on the United Nations agencies’ collaborative efforts in implementing the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) process as it approaches its 20-year review, particularly in relation to the Global Digital Compact (GDC). The session was moderated by representatives from the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) and featured participation from multiple UN agencies working together through the UN Group on the Information Society (UNGIS).

UNESCO, serving as the current chair of UNGIS, emphasized the enduring relevance of WSIS’s technology-neutral framework, which has successfully adapted across successive waves of digital innovation from early internet adoption to today’s artificial intelligence era. The organization highlighted its role as lead facilitator for six WSIS action lines and its commitment to ensuring digital transformation serves humanity rather than the reverse. UNDP, as vice-chair of UNGIS, outlined its extensive on-ground presence in over 170 countries, supporting governments with digital transformation initiatives, AI assessments, and digital public infrastructure development.

Regional UN commissions played a significant role in the discussion, with representatives from Africa (UNECA), Latin America (ECLAC), and Asia-Pacific (UNESCAP) describing their regional implementation efforts. The African perspective particularly emphasized the need for continued WSIS expansion and addressing connectivity challenges, while ECLAC presented innovative tools like digital complexity simulators to support productive digital transformation.

Specialized agencies including WIPO, UNIDO, FAO, and UNU described their sector-specific contributions to digital development, from intellectual property databases and AI-powered manufacturing solutions to digital agriculture initiatives and academic research networks. A key theme throughout the discussion was the importance of avoiding duplication between WSIS and the GDC while ensuring coherent integration of both frameworks. The session concluded with stakeholder questions about digital health access in marginalized communities, demonstrating the practical implementation challenges these agencies collectively address in their coordinated approach to global digital cooperation.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **UN Agency Coordination and Collaboration**: The discussion emphasized how various UN agencies (UNESCO, UNDP, UNCTAD, UNECA, ECLAC, UNU, WIPO, UNIDO, FAO, UNESCAP) are working together through UNGIS (United Nations Group on the Information Society) to avoid duplication and ensure coordinated implementation of digital development initiatives across different regions and sectors.

– **WSIS Plus 20 Review Process**: A central focus was the 20-year review of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), highlighting how the framework has remained relevant and evolved with technological changes from early internet adoption through AI, and the need to strengthen it as a multi-stakeholder platform for digital cooperation.

– **Integration of Global Digital Compact (GDC) with WSIS Architecture**: Multiple speakers stressed the importance of integrating GDC commitments into the existing WSIS framework to avoid duplication and ensure a cohesive approach to digital cooperation, as recognized in recent ECOSOC resolutions.

– **Regional Implementation and Capacity Building**: Significant attention was given to how regional UN commissions (UNECA for Africa, ECLAC for Latin America, UNESCAP for Asia-Pacific) are implementing WSIS action lines at regional levels, with emphasis on addressing connectivity challenges, digital skills development, and supporting developing countries in digital transformation.

– **Practical Applications and Innovation**: Discussion of concrete initiatives including AI for development, digital public infrastructure, technology transfer, startup incubation, digital health solutions, and evidence-based policy tools that demonstrate how UN agencies are translating global frameworks into on-ground impact.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to showcase how UN agencies are collaboratively implementing the WSIS process and preparing for its 20-year review, while demonstrating coordination mechanisms to avoid duplication and ensure effective integration with newer frameworks like the Global Digital Compact.

## Overall Tone:

The tone was consistently professional, collaborative, and forward-looking throughout the session. Speakers demonstrated mutual respect and emphasized partnership approaches. The moderator maintained an encouraging and inclusive atmosphere, and there was a strong sense of shared purpose among participants. The tone remained constructive even when technical difficulties occurred with remote participants, and concluded on a positive note with appreciation for collaboration and an invitation for group photography.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Moderator** – Gitanjali (ITU representative), coordinates UN agency collaboration and WSIS process implementation

– **Participant 1** – UNESCO representative, Chair of UNGIS (United Nations Group on Information Society), lead facilitator for six WSIS action lines

– **Yu-Ping Lien** – UNDP (United Nations Development Program) representative, Vice-Chair of UNGIS, focuses on digital cooperation and AI for sustainable development

– **Liping Zhang** – UNCTAD CSTD representative, involved in WSIS plus 20 review process and ECOSOC resolutions

– **Participant 3** – Maghtar, UN regional commission representative (likely UNECA), works on African digital development and Internet Governance

– **Sebastian Rovira** – UN ECLAC (Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean) representative, Vice-Chair of UNGIS, focuses on digital transformation in Latin America

– **Morten Langfeldt Dahlback Rapler** – United Nations University (UNU) representative, works on technology research, capacity building, and policy advice

– **Richard Gooch** – WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organization) representative, focuses on intellectual property and innovation databases

– **Jason Slater** – UNIDO (United Nations Industrial Development Organization) representative, Chief AI Innovation Digital Officer, co-chair of Global Digital Compact implementation

– **Dejan Jakovljevic** – FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization) representative, WSIS Champion, focuses on digital transformation in agri-food systems

– **Participant 4** – Siope, UNESCAP representative from Thailand, works on Asia-Pacific regional digital cooperation

– **Audience** – Multiple audience members including:

– Tsolofelo Mugoni – Internet Governance Coordinator from South Africa

– Ashling Lynch-Kelly – Foundation The London Story representative, Indian diaspora-led human and digital rights organization

**Additional speakers:**

None identified beyond those in the provided speakers names list.

# UN Agency Collaboration in WSIS Implementation and Global Digital Compact Integration

## Executive Summary

This discussion brought together representatives from multiple United Nations agencies to examine their collaborative efforts in implementing the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) process as it approaches its 20-year review milestone. Moderated by Gitanjali from ITU and featuring participation from UNESCO, UNDP, UNCTAD, regional UN commissions, and specialized agencies, the session focused on coordinated approaches through the UN Group on the Information Society (UNGIS) to integrate the recently adopted Global Digital Compact (GDC) while avoiding duplication of efforts.

*Note: This summary is based on a transcript with significant technical audio issues that affected the clarity of several speakers’ contributions, particularly from UNESCO. Some speaker identifications and detailed content may be incomplete due to these recording limitations.*

## Opening Framework

Gitanjali from ITU established the context of WSIS as a unique multi-stakeholder platform that has evolved over two decades. She emphasized that UNGIS serves as a coordination mechanism bringing UN agencies together to drive digital transformation while avoiding duplication. The timing was significant as member states prepare for the WSIS Plus 20 review process and work to integrate Global Digital Compact commitments into existing frameworks.

The moderator highlighted the challenge of ensuring that diplomats and stakeholder communities understand how WSIS has evolved with technology over the past 20 years, moving beyond basic connectivity to encompass artificial intelligence, digital rights, and comprehensive digital transformation.

## Agency Perspectives

### UNESCO’s Coordinating Role

As current chair of UNGIS and lead facilitator for six WSIS action lines, UNESCO’s representative (Participant 1) emphasized that digital transformation must serve humanity rather than the reverse. They highlighted WSIS’s technology-neutral framework, which has successfully adapted across successive waves of digital innovation. UNESCO mentioned producing evidence-based policy tools, including Internet Universality indicators and AI governance assessments to support member states.

*Note: Large portions of UNESCO’s contribution were affected by audio quality issues in the original recording.*

### UNDP’s Development Approach

Yu-Ping Lien from UNDP, serving as vice-chair of UNGIS, outlined the organization’s presence in over 170 countries and support for over 130 countries with digital and AI programs designed to advance sustainable development goals. UNDP has developed a digital public infrastructure approach emphasizing interoperable, inclusive, and rights-based digital transformation through AI readiness assessments and capacity-building initiatives.

Yu-Ping acknowledged that “it is a difficult time for the multilateral system and the international collaborative spirit,” emphasizing the need to leverage existing institutions and collaborative partnerships that deliver measurable impact.

## Regional Implementation

### African Priorities

The UNECA representative presented African perspectives, requesting expansion of WSIS for the next 10 years in Africa alongside continuation of the Internet Governance Forum. They emphasized Africa’s ongoing connectivity and infrastructure challenges, including electricity access issues that impact digital development. The representative called for mechanisms to integrate WSIS with the Global Digital Compact while establishing evaluation and monitoring systems, and requested institutionalization of the Internet Governance Forum.

### Latin American Innovation

Sebastian Rovira from UN ECLAC, joining virtually, presented approaches for the Latin American region, including digital complexity simulators to support productive digital transformation. ECLAC’s digital agenda aligns with the WSIS process while focusing on productive development and digital transformation challenges unique to the region.

### Asia-Pacific Cooperation

Siope from UNESCAP, joining from Thailand, outlined the Asia-Pacific region’s approach to promoting regional cooperation through steering committee meetings and best practice sharing, emphasizing collaborative learning and knowledge exchange.

## Specialized Agency Contributions

### WIPO – Intellectual Property and Innovation

Richard Gooch from WIPO provided data on AI-related patent applications, which increased by 3,000% between 2010 and 2024, with a 60% increase between 2021 and 2022. WIPO’s databases serve as resources for innovation and technology transfer, particularly through Technology and Innovation Support Centers helping innovators in developing countries access patent information.

### UNIDO – Industrial Applications

Jason Slater from UNIDO, serving as Chief AI Innovation Digital Officer and co-chair of Global Digital Compact implementation, presented applications of digital transformation in manufacturing. UNIDO helps small and medium enterprises integrate AI-powered solutions into production lines to improve energy efficiency and productivity. The ScaleX program supports startups and scales solutions for member states through accelerator programs and innovation challenges.

### FAO – Agricultural Transformation

Dejan Jakovljevic from FAO, recognized as a WSIS Champion, emphasized digital transformation of agri-food systems and production of digital public goods. FAO advocates for fundamental transformation of agricultural systems rather than simple efficiency improvements, addressing challenges like food security through integrated digital solutions.

### UNU – Research and Capacity Building

Morten Langfeldt Dahlback Rapler from United Nations University outlined UNU’s contributions through independent research, capacity building, and policy advice. UNU provides intellectual foundation for evidence-based digital governance, with approximately 1,000 experts across multiple global locations.

## Integration and Coordination Challenges

### Global Digital Compact Integration

Liping Zhang from UNCTAD CSTD emphasized that recent ECOSOC resolutions expect UNGIS to play a bigger role in the WSIS Plus 20 review process and develop implementation mapping for GDC integration. The consensus was that UNGIS provides the appropriate coordination mechanism for this integration, leveraging existing inter-agency relationships rather than creating new structures.

### Avoiding Duplication

Multiple speakers emphasized avoiding duplication between WSIS and GDC implementation, reflecting broader multilateral system challenges where overlapping mandates can reduce effectiveness. The solution involves leveraging existing successful mechanisms like UNGIS while adapting to new requirements.

## Audience Engagement

The discussion included audience questions, notably from Tsolofelo Mugoni from South Africa and Ashling Lynch-Kelly representing Foundation The London Story, who highlighted challenges in digital health implementation in India. Lynch-Kelly noted that while digital health democratizes healthcare access, marginalized communities often remain excluded, emphasizing the gap between policy aspirations and ground reality.

## Next Steps and Future Directions

The discussion identified several priorities:

– Enhanced UNGIS role in the WSIS Plus 20 review process

– Development of comprehensive implementation mapping for GDC integration

– Continued regional engagement through ministerial conferences

– Expansion of joint capacity building programs

– Youth engagement through networking events, including a youth party mentioned at the ITU Maubriant building

## Conclusion

This discussion demonstrated ongoing UN inter-agency collaboration in digital development while highlighting challenges in ensuring inclusive digital transformation. The emphasis on leveraging existing mechanisms like UNGIS rather than creating new structures reflects both resource management considerations and recognition of proven partnerships. The path forward requires continued attention to inclusive implementation and development of concrete mechanisms for measuring progress, building on the foundation of 20 years of WSIS implementation.

Moderator: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. This is after lunch. Try to keep it as interesting as possible. We have our UN agency colleagues here with us today to talk a bit more about what the UN is doing with reference to the WSIS process. As you all know, the WSIS is a UN process because we have the UNGA resolutions, ECOSOC resolutions. Within our own UN agencies, we have several resolutions that our membership have approved. So we are here to tell you more about what we are doing and what we think of the future of the WSIS process. The United Nations Group on the Information Society, it plays a pivotal role in advancing the mandates of WSIS on digital for development. It was created by the chief executive board to ensure that the UN system works together to drive digital transformation and sustainable development. We are a very effective and well-coordinated outcome-oriented group. We have chairs, vice chairs, and members of the CEB who are members of the UNGIS. We have extended it to observer members as well that include new UN entities like ODET. Well, the key mandates of UNGIS include policy coordination, multi-stakeholder engagement like we are doing today, supporting internationally agreed global development goals, monitoring and reporting, and of course UNGIS has been instrumental in supporting the Global Digital Compact and making sure that we deliver UNGIS inputs into the Global Digital Compact. So without any further delay I would like to invite of course our Chair UNESCO and our Vice-Chairs UNCTAD, UNDP, I represent ITU to kind of let us know what they are doing, what our vision is and of course aligning it with the GDC without duplications. UNESCO, I’ll pass the floor to you first, over to you, please.

Participant 1: Thank you very much Gitanjali. So just to highlight that indeed the 20-year review of WSIS is a pivotal moment to assess the progress and explore future directions and for us one of the enduring strengths of WSIS framework lies in its technology neutral and principle-based design. The action lines of WSIS and the outcome documents were deliberately crafted to transcend specific technologies and this design philosophy has allowed the WSIS framework to remain relevant across successive waves of digital innovation from the early days of the internet adoption through the rise of mobile phones and social media into today’s transformative era of the AI and at UNESCO as the lead facilitator for six action lines out of ways that up-to date and unique technologies can transform humanity into the best version. And what we mean by that in terms of validity efforts Technology by UNESCO together with the row and Ito Nomura. They launched a referendum by October 20th, and UNESCO’s report for the 20 years of WSIS contributing to the 28th session of the CSCD called for reinforcement of WSIS as a central multi-stakeholder platform that facilitates international cooperation in the digital policy. And for us, WSIS can strengthen its position as a hub for dialogue on emerging technologies, on issues such as misinformation, gender equality, and digital rights. To this end, it’s essential to further expand WSIS’s unique multi-stakeholder engagement with grassroots organizations, with youth, with marginalized communities. Our work is indeed guided by a singular vision that digital transformation must serve the humanity, not the other way around, as it has been highlighted and stated from UNESCO’s report. And we’re also committed to building capacity, training, and education for WSIS, as it has been highlighted and stated from various UN agencies, and in this vein, UNESCO is supporting Member States, for example, with evidence-based policy tools, such as the Internet Universality, RomEx indicators, to readiness assessment methodology for AI governance, just to give a few concrete examples. We’re also committed to working with educators, civil servants, and judicial actors to navigate the complexities of the digital era. like we can therefore grow these technologies further and further in the future, and then where we have been in India or in the U.S., it’s a resource again for employing individuals, 31% of the population. And we are also very grateful to the UN, we also served as the first consultation of the review process, and we are thankful to the co-facilitators of the representatives of Albania and Kenya to the UN for their engagement and cooperation, and of course our key partners of ITU and UNDP, and it is important to point out that UNESCO is a key partner of ITU and UNDP, and UNESCO is also a key partner of ITU and UNDP, and we are very grateful to the UN for this approach and in partnership with our UN colleagues, and our engagement within UNGIS, the UN group on the information society is central to this effort, and as a current chair of the group alongside with vice chairs ITU, UNDP and UNGTAT, UNESCO helps ensure that we maintain peace and harmony after the international agreement was agreed between the two Governments. We keep that in mind, and we hope through the exchanges in some sense to Flagler’s problems, he has brought the opportunities in the new shapes to cylinder open up.

Moderator: Thank you very much. Supervisors Tata, Conference comment please join us on the podium as well. Thank you so much. Thank you so much. which will feed into the WSIS Plus 20 overall review, highlighting the importance of the work that UNESCO is doing to implement the WSIS process and the vision of WSIS. So really, as you mentioned, the United Nations Group on Information Society, UNGIS, is a digital cooperation in action. We have been working together, not only to provide inputs to other UN processes and events happening, but also showing how UN can work together and avoid duplication. Thank you so much. I’d like to pass on to Yuping from UNDP, who is also vice chair of UNGIS. Yuping, over to you.

Yu-Ping Lien: Thank you so much, Gitanjali, and really thank you to colleagues for all being here today and to the stakeholders for spending so much of your time with us. As the United Nations Development Program, we’re very proud to be a co-convener of the WSIS Forum and also to work in partnership with all our sister and brother UN agencies, really thinking about how we deliver directly to communities and countries in the area of digital cooperation. So the United Nations Development Program is the UN’s development wing. We’re present in over 170 countries and territories around the world, and we have been, in many countries, the face of the UN in terms of accompanying a national government through all phases of its development, and particularly in countries where sometimes it is a little bit more of a challenging environment. And the United Nations Development Program has functioned as the right hand of government in implementing public services, supporting institutional operations, and really helping to deliver public services to the citizens and people of that country. So right now, for instance, we are in over 130 countries with supporting on programs or implementing programs on leveraging digital and AI to achieve the sustainable development goals. We have supported over 60 countries, I think, at last count in more specific areas, such as AI and digital assessments, digital capacity building, supporting the rollout of digital public infrastructure, technical advisory support to governments, in really thinking about how digital can be leveraged for a transformation. of their countries in support of development itself. And then we work very closely with our UN agency partners in many specific areas. So with the ITU on global AI skills and capacity building, with UNESCO colleagues on AI landscape and readiness assessments, and really looking at how there are specific areas in which we can really turn global discussions into concrete areas of work. I’ve touched on the various areas. We work at all levels, national, in-country, regional, through our regional bureaus, as well as the global sort of convening areas, as well as in thought leadership around digital public infrastructure, around AI for sustainable development, around sort of thinking about how AI and digital can be leveraged to achieve development with very practical delivery aspects. I want to really emphasize this idea that in some ways, because UNDP has such a broad developmental mandate, we can work across all these sectors to really bring together digital transformation, digital cooperation in a holistic and comprehensive way. So we work, for instance, with the technical expertise of our different colleagues that focus on the particular sectors. We’re bringing into a overall, all of government type developmental approach, whereby it’s not really just looking at one piece in isolation, but trying to bring it all together in a development perspective and a whole of government approach. So in that way, we serve as an integrated in-country, partnering with a lot of our colleagues that bring that level of technical expertise to the support of member states directly in-country itself. I just want to also support the point that’s been made by my other colleagues that in the implementation of the WSIS action lines and the WSIS framework, this coming together of the UN agencies through this type of interagency collaboration has been very powerful. The role of the United Nations Group on Information Society that UNESCO had highlighted and currently chairs has been critical in bringing about this kind of policy coherence, alignment, information sharing, and then the collaboration that can really bring to bear the cooperative strengths, the comparative advantages and expertise of the various UN systems. And then on the final point, I do also note that it is a difficult time for the multilateral system. and the international collaborative spirit that has brought us all together. The fact that WSIS is 20 years old, that we’re coming still together to discuss such aspects as capacity development, and the need to make sure that everyone, every way, including developing countries and the global South, are part of this global conversation, is really important. But that is why we in the WSIS Plus 20 review process need to double down on the idea of delivery of impact, of leveraging existing institutions, interagency mechanisms, and collaborative efforts and partnerships that have worked, that have delivered, and really continue to see how we can further support them at this critical moment. Alain and Dan, I really look forward to hearing from other colleagues and stakeholders.

Moderator: Thank you, Yu-Ping. UNDP is not only a close partner of the WSIS process, but also one of our main voices in New York, along with the New York offices that each one of us have. Thanks a lot for keeping us all updated about what’s going on in New York. We have made several efforts to ensure that the diplomats and the wider stakeholder community in New York is also abreast of what’s happening within the WSIS process, because finally the negotiations are going to take place in New York in December, and we would need each one of you to be advocates in New York for us, to be able to explain the importance of the WSIS process, the multi-stakeholder elements that it has, and also that it’s evolved with the evolution of technology. So the framework of WSIS Action Lines, the UN Framework, and so on and so forth, it all has evolved with the evolution of technology in these 20 years, and it’s not that we were set 20 years back and we are old and we have not evolved. As you can see, we are all standing here in front of you, ensuring that we are agile in digital. cooperation and that we are delivering. So, thank you very much. I have Ms. Liping Zhang from UNCTAD CSTD with us online. Liping, can you hear us? The floor is yours, Liping.

Liping Zhang: Can you hear me? Yes, Liping, please go ahead. Thank you, Gitanjali. Well, it’s a great pleasure to participate in this event at IGF again because we launched the CSTD consultation on WSIS plus 20 at IGF in Kyoto in October 2023. So, we are very happy to participate in this event organized by ITU at the IGF.

Moderator: Liping, we lost you. We don’t hear you anymore. Okay, we do hope we’ll get Liping back. As you all know, member states negotiated the ECOSOC resolution at the annual CSTD and one of the main paragraphs which were approved was that it recognizes the importance of integrating the implementation of GDC commitments into the WSIS architecture in order to avoid duplication and ensure a cohesive and consistent approach to digital cooperation. So, this really shows us the way member states are thinking currently of including the GDC objectives into the WSIS architecture. Liping, are you back? I just referred to the resolution that was adopted. Okay, while we get Liping back, maybe we could move to Maghtar because we are also working with the UN regional commissions that have a mandate to implement WSIS.

Participant 3: governance of cyber security with human rights and security european countryment meeting, these are the two events that start at the regional level. Mack fist he ask Mack privy TA , we are meeting we are very good progress in several areas challenges. meeting was adoption of the declaration Just, we are a large to make sure we align and integrate all this what is important we requested and framework in the wishes for the next outcome of this meeting. And also, we have adopted a declaration on African Internet Governance Forum in Tanzania end of May, and also, we have adopted a declaration on African Internet Governance Forum. This declaration call upon the continuation of IGF also for ten years to align with the request we have done in Cotonou, and also to align with the interpretation by the receipt authorities. And the organization need to come up and work on ways to avoid any duplication, with this framework. and the challenges faced by African countries, such as this issue of connectivity. It’s the issue of electricity also should be included in the next phase of which is because it’s something very important. Issue of data governance, of course, is covered in the Global Digital Compact, and AI also as a key issue. And also, the inclusion of people with disability on the general process of the digital economy in the world. Also, as the youngest review, we have several activities with our sister agency. I can highlight some. We already developed. We launched two weeks ago. We’ve entered the report on technology and innovation. It went very well. We are working also closely with ITU to develop this Africa Digital Gap to be ready by September. It is requested by the sector general to work closely with ITU to develop this Africa Digital Gap. Also, ICA has developed a taxation for the ICT sector model. This taxation show how, when we optimize the taxation on the ICT sector, we can increase the GDP, the job creation, as well as connectivity. And we agree with ITU to work together to expand this taxation report and taxation calculator in other regions across the world. Also, we work closely with ITU on the digital public infrastructure, also for Africa. We also organized with UNESCO and ITU, also the SEAS Technology Innovation Forum for Africa, held in Uganda in April. It went very well. And a lot of discussion was around how we can promote innovation using AI across the continent in line with the implementation of the five objectives of the GDC. On digital ID, also, we work. We have a good example with UNDP in UNICEF in Malawi to develop their strategy and their project on digital ID. Also on data governance, we are working closely with some UN agencies in four countries, namely DRC, Mozambique, Tanzania and Burundi to support them to develop their national data governance strategy as well as to build their capacity on data governance. In conclusion, I think we need to work all together and more efficiently given this budget issue and UNICEF and IT work closely and UNCCAD and UNDP and I think we can replicate this in several countries with other organizations and in conclusion, for Africa, the message is very clear. We request the expansion of WSIS for the next 10 years in Africa and the IGF also for the next 10 years and of course to avoid any duplication with global digital compact, we should put in place a mechanism for integration of this framework as well as a mechanism for evaluation and monitoring for WSIS, for IGF to measure the progress and where we can correct it because we have a target in WSIS but we don’t have it in the Internet Governance Forum as well as we need also to institutionalize Internet Governance Forum. It is a summary of key activity undertaken in Africa under the committee. Thank you.

Moderator: Thank you, Magtar and thank you for emphasizing on the important role that regional commissions are playing at the regional level to implement WSIS. I do have Sebastian. Sebastian Roviria on our list from UN ECLAC, the Latin American Commission. Colleagues, the production company, could we know if Sebastian is online? Yes, I can see him on the screen. Sebastian, it’s really late for you. Over to you.

Sebastian Rovira: Thank you very much, Ms. Jethahali. Nice to be here. Actually, it’s a pleasure to share. I’m also trying to be online here with you. Just to bring some issue related to what we have been doing in ECLAC related to digital transformation in the last, in the last, maybe in the last year. As you know, ECLAC has been indeed very at the forefront of design and analytical to support government in navigating the digital transformation. So we have been put a strong emphasis on evidence-based policy. And one of our flagship initiative in this is how we call simulator of productive digital transformation for support. The, actually the design and implementation of new tools to support digital transformation in the region. As you know, this is a tool very, actually is grounding the concept of digital complexity. Something, this is something new for the region. And actually we’re trying to seek to understand the capacity of a country that, or sector also, to be integrate and absorb advanced digital technologies based on its productive and technology capacity. This is important also to our digital agenda to implement the ECLAC agenda. This is a regional project that we have been working in the last 20 years. I’m very in line with the WSIS process. And these tools are actually, we’re trying to actually support the identification of digital pathway for different sectors of the economy. I also try to quantify the. distance to be more complex in the digital technology. I also design target intervention by matching technology demand with the institutional and productive readiness of the territory. So in this, in the context of the WSIS plus 20 review process, this approach trying to contribute to concretely to several dimension of the digital development agenda. This is important also to scale up the cell for and require not just technical collaboration but also political alignment and resources mobilization. You know, the WSIS plus 20 provide a unique opportunity to formalize these kind of synergies and embedded digital complexity approach into the global digital cooperation architecture and particularly in the context of the GDC and the SDG implementation. So I think this is very important also to try to identify new tools and also how we can collaborate in this process since, you know, the digital transformation actually accelerate is important also to trying to identify new ways on how we can support and also collaborate in this process. Up to you, Jitha, how are you?

Moderator: Thank you, Sebastian. And thank you for being the vice chair of UNGES this year bringing the regional perspectives and ECLAC is one of the regional commissions that organizes the ministerial conference on information society in Latin America and the Caribbean region and covers WSIS through that ministerial session as well. So this year it was, last year it was held in Chile. So thank you so much.

Sebastian Rovira: Absolutely, absolutely. Now we have, you know, we have this new agenda. This is the agenda for these two years, the ECLAC 2026. It was approved last year in 2024 with some key elements in the agenda. You know, the agenda is organized and actually. We have three main pillars, one related to productive development, another with well-being, and another with the transformation of the state. And there are other axes that are more transversal to the agenda. One is related to the meaningful connectivity and digital infrastructure. This is something that really important that we have identified. This is not enough, obviously, to count on you have the infrastructure of being connected. It’s also other elements that must be important also to be assured that you are using the connectivity in a proper way, and you can also appropriate from the value that this technology could bring to the people. Another one is related to the governance of digital security. And this is every day is being more and more important, particularly related to the advance of artificial intelligence. How you are governance, the data that is generated in this space, and also the IGF count and it started to be much, much more important. And the last one is related to this innovation and this emerging new technology. The old artificial intelligence and these other aspects, how you are using these to support the sustainable development. The agenda, as Gitanjali says, is organized on these three main pillars and these three main axes, and the idea is how you use this also to accelerate the transformation, digital transformation, but this acceleration must be inclusive and that the same way allowed countries and the region to transform their productive process and also the inclusion process. We also, for sure, have new instrument to implement this agenda. One, as was saying, is this related to this simulator. This is part of the digital transformation lab. Another one, and I think this is very important, is an observatory on digital development. because, you know, and this is obvious for developing regions, you need data, you need, you must do evidence-based policies and every day is being more and more important. Another one is related to this, the necessary and importance of, you know, support capacity building and we have some digital schools, digital formation school for the Latin America and for the Caribbean. And the last one is related to these working groups that we have in the framework of the ELAG process, one related to digital economy, another artificial intelligence, another meaningful connectivity, data governance, and the Caribbean are some of the instruments that we’re working in the process of this ELAG because it’s not just a political agenda, it’s also an implementing agenda that’s trying to support the countries in this digital formation process.

Moderator: Thank you so much, Sebastian, for joining us virtually, even though you couldn’t be here with us physically this time, and we really appreciate the implementation of the WSIS process at the regional level and you also won the WSIS prize one year, I recall, and really like the Latin American region is much more engaged in the WSIS process, thanks to the advocacy that ELAG has been doing. Thank you so much. I can, there’s light, but I do see Mr. Slater from UNIDO also there. Slater, if you’d like to join us here, that would be great. I would now like to pass on the floor to Martin from United Nations University. Martin, tell us what’s happening in that world.

Morten Langfeldt Dahlback Rapler: Thank you. It’s not a short answer, but I’ll try and highlight a few things. So, first of all, UNU has long recognized the potential of technology and it’s been a core focus across all our work since the late, early 1990s. This is anything from water management and natural resource management to peacekeeping and the transformation of society or the public sector at large. Naturally, we’ve been supporting the WSIS process from the onset and we generally link this to the SDGs and the GDC. So for instance, we contribute to the WSIS process, we participate in the WSIS forum every year, we bring our partners there, but we also contribute to the formulation of the pact of the future, and we facilitated the data deep dive consultation for the GDC to ensure that it’s aligned, and in fact we worked with Makta and his team to do that on AI and data governance in the African context. Today, we actively collaborate with all UN agencies essentially, and we also work with regional and national partners. Uniquely, UNU is not funded by the UN general budget. It is funded directly by our national partners, our regional partners. So we are instead funded by member states who relies on us or entrust us with independent research, capacity building, policy advice and assessment, and of course we bring the WSIS objectives and other objectives from the UN system into that work. Today we are about a thousand experts, not officials, but experts working in 19 different locations across 14 countries. We do that in different ways. We usually do that in local collaboration with research entities, so we’re usually co-hosted with a university or research organization and enjoys the support from national or local or regional government in terms of our financing. We are also deeply embedded into the UN digital cooperation architecture and contribute to a various number of forums. So our rector… is a member on the UN Secretary’s General Scientific Advisory Board. Our UN office is working with the Office for ICT on this year’s Digital Technologies Report. We are also leading research support for the Advisory Board for Artificial Intelligence. Together with ITU, we are developing the AI for Good flagship project. We are also working on AI in cities with U4SSE, which is another ITU initiative, but targeting local authorities and AI in the city context. We ran a series of webinars with the International Social Security Association on all things AI in social security protection and universal coverage, and that culminated on a report with policy recommendations for social security agencies last year. We are also part of the Working Group on Data Governance from the SCDD. We are actually in the Working Group on Digital Inclusion for the Islamic Development Bank, and on Sunday, we are launching a five-day virtual training on that with their member states and partners from there. We work closely with the UNDP DPI Safeguards Group. We are part of the Open Source Convex project that is being launched quite recently by the Office of the ICT, together with RISE, the Swedish Research Institute. In the regional context, we have set up a number of member state networks on digital transformation. We already launched one a few years ago for West Africa together with UNECA and also the African Union and UNDESA. That led to the launch of a South and East African Governance Network last year in South Africa. And Tuesday, we launched a Central Asian Governance Network sponsored by the government of Turkmenistan. Lastly, we also run a number of different type of online networks, so again local government, service online is a network that was also presented earlier today by the Tunisians together with UNDESA, we do the same with innovation in health led by technology in the hospice and we run a number of conference series bringing both practitioners, civil society and decision makers and researchers together, so the next one is in October, the AI conference series in Macau and our ISCOF conference hosted by the government of Nigeria in Abuja in November. So essentially we support WSIS and the process and the objectives throughout our work, again we’re focusing on independent evidence based insights, particularly tailoring the implementation on some of our objectives in the member states and always try and link that from governance to practical implementation.

Moderator: Thank you Martin for that really comprehensive response and in fact I recall we’ve been working with UNU, not only your eGov centre but also there’s a centre in Macau that has been working with us since really the inception of WSIS and we’ve always been exploring the academic training angles, not only that I think we’ve been in joint sessions with countries to also explore the implementation of WSIS action lines on the ground, so thank you so much for this excellent collaboration that we have here for WSIS. I’ll move on to Richard from WIPO, who’s not only our good neighbour in Geneva but has been working very closely with us on various issues, Richard over to you.

Richard Gooch: Absolutely, thank you very much Geetanjali for inviting me and of course we’re confirming that as a good neighbour from across the street we always work very closely with WIPO. our good friends from ITU. So just to say that as the UN Agency for Intellectual Property, WIPO serves, of course, these world’s innovators and creators. We do this through our international IP registries that help them transform the ideas from across borders or by setting international IP standards and norms. So this includes, of course, the two new international multilateral treaties that have been concluded last year. One of the more exciting also work of our organization is our ability to track intellectual property activity across the world. And our databases include among others, well, 120 million patent documents, 17 million designs, 68 million trademarks. And all of this data is available for anyone to use and it is powered by different AI tools that help search and translate it to different languages. So examples, what you can do with this IP information. So you can find among others that over the past 20 years, patent applications have grown the fastest in computer technologies and digital communication with an average annual growth of around 8%. Between 2010 and 2024, the number of patent grants for AI technology was up over 3,000% and only between 21 and 22, it was 60%. And this is just a snippet of all the information you can find within this IP information. This is all the findings, the insights you can get from this IP information. This is just a snippet of it. Through our patent information insight reports, we leverage all this patent information to explore a number of technologies such as AI, of course, but also assistive technologies, transportation or health and safety tech. And on many of these, we are working very closely with a lot of our UN family partners. as well as beyond. Perhaps to also say that equally important is that all this information is also used by our innovators and creators, because by accessing this data, accessing this information, then they can avoid duplication of R&D, build on existing knowledge and improving inventions, assess potentiability of their inventions, identify licensing and collaboration opportunities, and many more. So at WIPO, we really want to make sure that all innovators from across the world have access to this knowledge gathered in these databases, and that they know how to use it. So this is why we continue to expand our technology and innovation support centers in short disks. Typically, they are located in the patent office, universities, and science and tech parks in developing and least developed countries, and they enable the researchers and inventors to get access and to use the technological information gathered in this database, and a score of scientific and technical publications which is linked to it. In recent years, also, the disks have been starting developing additional innovation support services, such as technology transfer, IP management, or commercialization. And since disks were launched back in 2009, 93 countries have established these networks, helping innovators develop new innovations across local communities. This is just one of the wide examples that I could be giving. We have submitted, of course, our VCs plus 20 review, where you can find all our work on digital and development. But being here, also, just to mention that being here in IGF and hearing all the discussions, including on AI, let me just mention that we also have our WIPO conversation, which is a forum intended to provide everyone with a leading global setting to discuss all the impacts of frontier technologies and all the many different IP rights, and to also bridge that information gap. What is also important is that following the different versions of the conversations, we provide a range of tools and on-the-ground projects, such as the AI and IP Policy Toolkit, or the upcoming AI and Infrastructure Interchange. And I know the time is always running short, and I’m always looking at the clock and the moderator, but I just want to finish by saying that WIPO is always looking forward to supporting all our stakeholders and countries in ensuring that every innovation creator can thrive. And we love doing this together with our UN family and our partners from across the world. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Moderator: Thank you very much, Richard. I’ll move on to Jason Slater from UNIDO. Jason, I recall once the SDGs were adopted in 2015, UNIDO got together with us and we wanted to highlight resilient infrastructure, the SDG 9. And we had a great partnership within the WSIS process. There were also several high-level dialogues in 2017, and so on and so forth. So really, UNIDO plays a very important role in terms of the resilient infrastructure part. Not only that, but much more. We’re also partnering for the youth track this year. UNIDO is bringing some young people to the WSIS high-level events, so please do join us to see the spirit of the youngsters and what they want us to do beyond 2025. Over to you, Jason.

Jason Slater: Thank you very much. And thank you for putting me on the spot. So I don’t have any prepared speaking notes whatsoever. But, yeah, no, I mean, understanding what the topic is, which is key around collaboration. As you pointed out, we’ve been working together with yourselves, ITU now for a number of years, with my colleague next door now in FAO. How are we collaborating on agriculture, supply chains, et cetera, looking at certain value chains such as coffee and what have you. But just to take a slight step back. You know, we hear about the spirit of cooperation, we hear about what WSIS has been doing. As you mentioned, we’ve been collaborating now in a number of years with WSIS on some of the action lines. Last year we had the adoption of the Global Digital Compact. UNIDO has been appointed as one of the co-chairs, along with our colleagues from UNTAD, on inclusive sustainable digital economy. And what we are doing, and we’re using forums such as WSIS and AI for Good, is how can we have a call for solutions? From UNIDO’s perspective, we’re really looking at how can we build up this multi-stakeholder approach through the private sector, through academia, through think tanks, to ultimately identify solutions that can solve problems of our member states. And that, of course, is not something that’s unique to us. A number of us are doing this on the panel, and I’m sure we’re all working with similar ecosystems, and that’s something that I think we can come together more and more and amplify, because if we do this collectively, with each of our unique mandates and specializations, we will have a much, much greater impact. So just, if I may just touch on a few specific areas that we are now prioritizing. So in my role as Chief AI Innovation Digital Officer, providing services to our 172 member states, we realized that we are having to focus on areas that, when we talk about AI, that’s perhaps not as what’s so commonly known at the moment, when we think about Gen AI and what’s going on around Copilot, Gemini, GPT, et cetera, but really about what can you do when you’re leveraging AI in, for example, smart manufacturing? How can you help a small-medium enterprise who’s got a relatively old-aging production line and inject it with AI-powered chips that can make their production line more energy-efficient? etc. So, this is an area that we’ve seen that we want to start to support even more, so we’re establishing a number of centres of excellences, for example in Addis in Ethiopia in collaboration with the Chinese government, in Morocco, in Tunisia. We have a number of others that will be coming up in Latin America in the coming months, in Cuba, in Venezuela and what have you, and really to see how can we build up this partnership-based approach to bring those solutions from technology providers, from industry, etc. so that our member states can ultimately benefit from this. Last but not least, I would just like to also mention that in this space of innovation, how can we also harness what’s going on around start-ups and innovators. We have a programme that’s referred to ScaleX, which is basically Free Fold. It has an accelerator programme. Actually, again, we did this in collaboration with FAO last year. We had an innovation challenge. We had wonderful people who actually won the award that developed an AI chip that could smell food loss, which we’re now actually looking to deploy in some of our projects. So, in addition to this, we have the innovation side as well, which is a collaboration between ourselves as UN agencies with the corporate sector and, in particular, with fund managers as well, so that we can ultimately support and help start-ups scale their solutions and become investable. With that, I will just take a minute to pause, knowing about the time, and say thank you very much for inviting me to this stage and looking forward to continuing with our collaboration and see you in a couple of weeks.

Moderator: Thank you, Jason, and just for those of you who will join the high-level event, as part of the youth track, we will have a youth party. It’s a youth networking event, so all of us are invited. We’re all young at heart, so you’re all invited to the ITU Maubriant building on the 7th for the youth party. So, Jason, you mentioned the hackathons and the smart challenges. These are really great. But one thing we really need to look at is also the incubation of this good work. You did touch upon it, like how do we incubate these startups? So that’s something we would really like to explore more with FAO and UNIDO. And while we are talking about FAO, Deyan, congratulations, you’re a WSIS champion this year. WSIS prizes champion. Can you tell us more about the project and the work that you’re doing?

Dejan Jakovljevic: Yes, of course. Before I mentioned the project, first of all, thank you for inviting me also to the stage. So Food and Agriculture Organization, our focus is to basically end hunger. And the way we approach that is by looking at having better production, better nutrition, better environment and better life. And to achieve that, we know that technology or the digital opportunities offer us enablement, but also acceleration of the urgently needed transformation of agri-food systems. So how do we do that? We basically don’t look only at one sector and, for example, only to improve production, but we also look into improving production and opportunities to transform. And I think this is maybe common, what I’m hearing also with our colleagues from our agencies. The opportunities we see and we need to take advantage of require transformation, not simply doing the same thing, but maybe more efficient, but actually transformation. And this is some of the projects that you’re mentioning as well from UNIDO. If we look at FAO contribution, what we focus on is producing the digital public goods. We are also contributing to digital public infrastructures. We also provide advisories and enablement mechanisms for countries to transform agri-food system sector. So, digitalization on different elements. But also, if I look around just this panel, most of the enabling elements is actually among us. So, this is where we see a huge benefit of UNGIS and this is also GDC and other instruments that we use for the enabling elements. I’ll just give a few examples. We do know we still need to work on connectivity, so we heavily rely on broadband commission and work of ITU on that and we really appreciate all the efforts. We also know we need to step up the educational elements and we have UNESCO here as well. So, we have jointly all together, how to say, the mandates and the instruments to move forward. One of the other areas that is very important to mention is that we need to work cross-sectorial. FAO cannot cover all the sectors, our mandate is clear, so we do depend on others and we see that as opportunity, so we will continue to work in this way. And yes, I think this is our second or third WSIS Champion Award. So, that particular project is focusing on avoiding food loss, in fact, and this is one area that is not really fully explored and a lot of food is being wasted even before harvest and before it gets to the table. So, this is one of the examples. But some of the major capabilities we provide are for stakeholders, so for targeted interventions and for investment cases. So, this is something that we do every October at the World Food Day, at the 80th birthday also of FAO this year. And also, we provide digital public goods to the farmers. So knowledge products in hand, or what we refer to as extension services. So again, looking at the clock, thank you very much, but I’ll be around if any questions come up. Thank you.

Moderator: Thank you, Dejan. A colleague from UNSCAP messaged me that he’s also online. So production team, if you can get COP, the floor, it’s 8.30 in Thailand. So COP, thank you so much for being there. COP, can you hear us? The floor is yours, COP. This is… Hi, Kirtanjali. Please go ahead, COP. Hi.

Participant 4: Well, first of all, thank you so much, Kirtanjali, for inviting ESCAP. I’m pleased to be part of the conversation this evening. ESCAP looks forward to working closely with ITU, and we have done in the past. Through our regional programs, we have worked together with ITU on the regional review of WSIS. And of course, every year, we hold the Asia-Pacific Information Superhighway Steering Committee, of which we work together with ITU to bring in the champions in the Asia-Pacific region to share their projects with other Asia-Pacific countries and try to promote best practices and lessons learned from other countries. So we look forward to doing that this year as well. I think the next API Steering Committee meeting is planned for November of this year. So we look forward to working together with ITU on that and also other agencies. As you may know, ESCAP continues to work with member states in the region to promote regional cooperation on connectivity. through capacity building and also policy advisory on digital transformation. We look forward to working together with other agencies through UNKISS to promote digital cooperation and transformation in the region. So thank you so much for the opportunity to contribute to today’s conversation. Thank you.

Moderator: Thank you, Siope, and thanks for being with us. It’s so late in Thailand, so thank you so much. With that, we’d like to open the floor. I do see some of you who were raising your hand earlier. Was it – guys, this is your chance to raise your – oh, ma’am, please introduce yourself and please take the floor.

Audience: Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Tsolofelo Mugoni. I’m Internet Governance Coordinator from South Africa. Firstly, let me start by saying it is very pleasing to see a wide range of UN agencies take the floor and talk to us about the work that they do. So thank you to the facilitator and the coordinator for coordinating this session. At South Africa, we recognize and commend the work of UNJUS, particularly in driving digital cooperation within UN systems. We particularly acknowledge and commend the work of UN agencies such as UNEKA, which have played a critical role in supporting developing countries, especially across Africa, to access emerging technologies. By promoting technology transfer and facilitating the integration of ICTs, international strategies, UNEKA has helped ensure that digital transformation contributes meaningfully to inclusive growth. will be as good as next, and the authorities will need to set the tone to go from a day to a month. But the table assessment of the conditions we can hold will be as good and brackish and difficult as next, and the caps need to prepare to rent by six months. Thank you.

Moderator: Thank you very much. We look forward to continuing working with you. Thank you so much. Yes, ma’am, please go ahead.

Audience: Thank you so much for this very interesting and fruitful discussion. I’m Ashling Lynch-Kelly from Foundation The London Story. We’re an Indian diaspora-led human and digital rights organization. So we recently commissioned the first ever baseline study on the challenges and possible solutions for accessing digital health in India. While digital health is undoubtedly democratizing access to healthcare in India, we know that much of the population in India is marginalized, and that people in marginalized communities as well as those who live in rural areas without adequate internet access or internet infrastructure remain largely excluded, and thus unable to access good-quality healthcare. Given these persistent barriers and the significant potential of digital health to advance SDG 3 and SDG 10 in India, we’d be interested to know if and how UNDP and UNGIS other members are working with stakeholders to ensure that the world’s largest democracy can fully benefit from the transformative power of digital healthcare, and work to ensure that access to healthcare in India expands to become fully inclusive, high-quality, and accessible for all. Thank you very much.

Moderator: Thank you very much.

Yu-Ping Lien: Thank you for the question. So we actually have quite an extensive UNDP country office in India, which is working to implement a variety of programs, including, I believe, on digital health. But the overall approach that we take to digital health is really founded on a digital public infrastructure approach, which emphasizes interoperable, inclusive, rights-based approaches to digital transformation. So as part of that, we actually worked very closely with the India G20 presidency two years ago around this particularly groundbreaking approach to digital transformation and really thinking about how digital public infrastructure and really embedding this notion of a rights-based, inclusive, people-centered approach to digital public infrastructure should be part of that conversation. So we’re looking forward to actually continuing the work with the Indian government. We actually had the Indian government and the additional secretary, Abhishek, who’s here at the Internet Governance Forum on the panel just, I think it was two days ago, around AI implementation at the country level, where he reiterated this particular approach and outlined a little bit around the examples of the use cases where he also highlighted digital health. This will continue to be an area of collaboration between UNDP, particularly to our country offices, emphasizing the need for such a rights-based, inclusive approach. And we also welcome this kind of stakeholder input. So feel free to reach out to us if you have any specific suggestions of how we could improve this type of collaboration, any messages that we should continue to press forward as really a global thought leader in the area of digital public infrastructure, especially as we look towards next year’s AI Action Summit that will be hosted by India New Delhi. UNDP is actually working on making sure that this intersection between AI and digital public infrastructure, always grounded in UNDP’s approach on being rights-based, inclusive, and people-centered, will take root.

Moderator: Thank you very much, Yuping. We are also working with WHO on various standards. ITU is working on various standards, and you can get in touch with us also for further details. Can we try to bring in Liping Zhang from UNCTAD, please? She is there, and she would like to just very quickly finish her intervention. Liping Zhang. Liping, can you hear us? I can hear you. Please go ahead. Please go ahead.

Liping Zhang: Well, given the time constraint, I’ll be very brief. Basically, I want to inform you that the CSD has completed its work on their WISC plus 20 review, which will be reported to the General Assembly through ECOSOCO and the outcome of the discussions at the initiation of CSD in April this year was reflected in the WSIS resolution. The resolution will be approved by ECOSOCO in July at its management segment and then will be submitted to the General Assembly as kind of inputs to its review to be held in December. And in that resolution, the only contribution to the WSIS was highly appreciated and was recognized. In particular, it also places expectation on ONGIS to play an important role in the after 20 years review of the WSIS, which is basically to have a bigger role as an outcome of the review at the General Assembly. That’s what the CSD resolution has recommended. The ONGIS should integrate the GDC into its action lines, and it should also play a bigger role in developing kind of implementation mapping relating to the GDC. The overall purpose is basically to align the WSIS with the Sustainable Development Goals and the GDC implementation. So, well, I don’t have anything else to add because of the time constraint. It’s already after 3.45. If you have any questions, I’m ready to answer.

Moderator: Thank you very much, Liping. And we thank all UN agencies who have joined us here today. We’d like to invite you for a group photograph in the front. you can join us, please. And thank you to the audience for your wonderful questions and participation. Thank you. Well, did I cut? Thank you. Thank you.