Uncategorized

Summary

This discussion, moderated by Yasmin Afina from the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR), focused on responsible AI governance in security contexts and the critical role of multi-stakeholder engagement. The session was part of UNIDIR’s roundtable on AI security and ethics (RAISE), established in partnership with Microsoft to bridge global divides and foster cooperation on AI governance issues. Three expert panelists provided opening remarks: Dr. Jingjie He from the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences emphasized the importance of inclusive, multi-stakeholder approaches and highlighted AI’s positive applications in satellite remote sensing for conflict monitoring, while noting challenges like adversarial attacks. Michael Karimian from Microsoft outlined industry’s crucial role in establishing norms and safeguards, emphasizing transparency, accountability, due diligence throughout the AI lifecycle, and proactive collaboration to reduce global capacity disparities. Dr. Alexi Drew from the International Committee of the Red Cross advocated for comprehensive lifecycle management approaches to AI governance, arguing that ethical and legal considerations must be integrated at every stage rather than treated as afterthoughts.

The discussion addressed several critical concerns raised by participants, including the need for AI content authentication to prevent misinformation and violence, the risks of AI misalignment in military contexts where commanders may rely on AI systems under pressure, and questions about responsibility for mitigating AI risks in developing countries with limited technological control. All panelists agreed that responsibility for AI governance is shared among all stakeholders—governments, industry, civil society, and individuals—though each has distinct roles and capabilities. The conversation concluded with optimism that innovation and security can coexist when guided by proper values and governance frameworks, emphasizing that responsible AI development requires collective global effort rather than competitive approaches.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Multi-stakeholder governance of AI in security contexts**: The discussion emphasized the critical need for inclusive engagement across various stakeholders (governments, industry, civil society, academia) to effectively govern AI applications in international peace and security, with particular focus on platforms like UNIDIR’s RAISE initiative.

– **Industry responsibility and proactive engagement**: Extensive discussion on how technology companies must take active roles in establishing norms, implementing due diligence processes, ensuring transparency and accountability, and contributing technical expertise throughout the AI lifecycle rather than treating governance as an afterthought.

– **Lifecycle management approach to AI governance**: A central theme focusing on the necessity of integrating ethical, legal, and technical governance considerations at every stage of AI development – from initial design and data selection through validation, deployment, and eventual decommissioning – rather than applying governance as a final checkpoint.

– **AI authenticity and content verification challenges**: Participants raised concerns about the security implications of AI-generated content that cannot be easily distinguished from human-created content, discussing the need for technical solutions like digital signatures to identify AI-generated materials and prevent misuse for disinformation or conflict instigation.

– **Military applications and human-machine interaction risks**: Discussion of specific challenges in military contexts, including the risk of AI systems becoming misaligned during battlefield use, commanders’ over-reliance on AI decision-support systems under pressure, and the importance of maintaining compliance with international humanitarian law in AI-enabled military operations.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to explore responsible AI governance frameworks for international peace and security through a multi-stakeholder lens, examining how different actors (UN institutions, industry, civil society, military) can collaborate to ensure AI technologies enhance rather than undermine global stability and security.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a professional, collaborative, and constructive tone throughout. It began with an informative and academic approach during the introductory presentations, then became more interactive and practically-focused during the Q&A session. Despite addressing serious security concerns and potential risks, the conversation remained optimistic about the possibility of achieving responsible AI governance through collective action. The tone was notably inclusive, with moderators actively encouraging participation from diverse geographic and sectoral perspectives, and speakers consistently emphasizing shared responsibility rather than assigning blame.

Speakers

– **Yasmin Afina** – Researcher from the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR), moderator of the session on responsible AI in security, governance, and innovation

– **Jingjie He** – Dr. from the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, researcher working on AI and satellite remote sensing projects

– **Michael Karimian** – Representative from Microsoft, involved in the roundtable for AI security and ethics (RAISE)

– **Alexi Drew** – Dr. from the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), expert on lifecycle management approach to AI governance in security

– **Bagus Jatmiko** – Commander in the Indonesian Navy, researcher in AI and information warfare within the military domain and defense sector

– **Audience** – Multiple audience members who asked questions and made comments during the session

**Additional speakers:**

– **Francis Alaneme** – Representative from the .ng domain name registry

– **George Aden Maggett** – Judge at the Supreme Court of Egypt and honorary professor of law at Durham University, UK

– **Rowan Wilkinson** – From Chatham House (mentioned in chat/questions but did not speak directly in the transcript)

# Comprehensive Report: Responsible AI Governance in Security Contexts – Multi-Stakeholder Perspectives and Collaborative Frameworks

## Executive Summary

This discussion, moderated by Yasmin Afina from the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR), examined responsible artificial intelligence governance in international peace and security contexts. The session formed part of UNIDIR’s Roundtable on AI Security and Ethics (RAISE), a collaborative initiative established in partnership with Microsoft to foster international cooperation on AI governance issues.

The discussion brought together perspectives from academia, industry, humanitarian organisations, military institutions, and the judiciary to explore multi-stakeholder approaches to AI governance challenges. Through interactive polling, structured presentations, and Q&A dialogue, participants examined questions about responsibility, accountability, and practical implementation of AI governance frameworks whilst addressing concerns about technical limitations, power imbalances, and real-world consequences of AI deployment in security contexts.

## Session Context and UNIDIR/RAISE Introduction

Yasmin Afina opened by explaining UNIDIR’s role as the UN’s dedicated research institute on disarmament, established during the Cold War to provide neutral space for dialogue on security issues. She positioned the RAISE initiative as continuing this tradition by creating depoliticised forums for AI governance discussions that can overcome competitive dynamics and distrust hindering international cooperation.

The moderator emphasised that whilst AI presents opportunities for enhancing international peace and security, it also introduces complex challenges requiring collaborative approaches across traditional boundaries. She noted the session’s connection to broader international efforts, including ongoing discussions around the Global Digital Compact and other UN-sponsored platforms addressing AI governance.

## Interactive Opening: Stakeholder Perspectives

Using Slido polling (code 179812), Afina engaged participants on two key questions about AI’s role in international peace and security and the multi-stakeholder community’s effectiveness in addressing governance challenges.

Participant responses highlighted diverse concerns including:

– Censorship and surveillance capabilities

– Fake news and misinformation

– Data privacy violations

– Facial recognition at borders

– Autonomous weapons systems

– Cybersecurity threats

These responses established the broad scope of AI governance challenges that would be addressed throughout the session.

## Expert Panel Presentations

### Academic Perspective: Dr. Jingjie He, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences

Dr. He emphasised the critical importance of multi-stakeholder approaches, arguing that technological challenges inherently require interdisciplinary solutions. She highlighted positive applications of AI in peace and security contexts, specifically referencing Amnesty International’s Darfur project as a successful example. This initiative used Element AI technology with 29,000 volunteers to analyse satellite imagery for conflict monitoring, demonstrating AI’s potential as a tool for humanitarian purposes.

However, Dr. He acknowledged significant technical challenges, particularly adversarial attacks that make AI systems fragile and governance discussions complex. She introduced the concept of AI as both a “force multiplier” and “threat multiplier,” noting that poorly designed systems create risks for both civilian populations and military forces themselves.

Regarding transparency, Dr. He expressed scepticism about algorithm openness due to intellectual property concerns and industry practices of protecting core technologies. She concluded by emphasising shared responsibility for AI governance whilst acknowledging the need for better knowledge sharing between technology developers and decision-makers, particularly in military contexts.

### Industry Perspective: Michael Karimian, Microsoft

Karimian outlined industry’s role in establishing norms and safeguards for responsible AI deployment in security contexts. He emphasised that companies are uniquely positioned to identify risks early in development processes and have obligations under UN guiding principles to ensure their products are not used for human rights abuses.

He stressed industry responsibility extends beyond compliance to proactive engagement in norm-setting and standard development. Karimian advocated for clear standards ensuring AI systems used in security applications are transparent about their capabilities and limitations, with robust accountability mechanisms including documentation, monitoring, and auditing capabilities.

Addressing global capacity disparities, Karimian noted the importance of proactive collaboration to reduce inequalities in AI governance capabilities between developed and developing nations. He suggested industry has a role in supporting capacity-building initiatives, particularly where regulatory frameworks are still emerging.

### Humanitarian Perspective: Dr. Alexi Drew, International Committee of the Red Cross

Dr. Drew presented a comprehensive lifecycle management framework for AI governance, arguing that governance must be integrated at every stage from initial design through decommissioning. She identified three critical stages:

1. **Development stage**: Ensuring compliance requirements like International Humanitarian Law are built in from the outset

2. **Validation stage**: Addressing risks of localization where systems may not work as intended in different contexts

3. **Deployment stage**: Managing inscrutability risks where users may not understand system limitations

Dr. Drew emphasised that systems should be designed, trained, and tested with compliance requirements integrated rather than retrofitted, preventing governance from becoming a “checkbox exercise.” She highlighted that all stakeholders possess various levers of influence, including participation in standard-setting organisations and procurement strategies to enforce governance requirements.

Addressing innovation concerns, Dr. Drew rejected the notion that responsible AI governance requires trade-offs between innovation and security, characterising this as a design challenge rather than a zero-sum game. She also stressed the importance of training military users to understand AI system capabilities, limitations, and failure modes.

## Audience Q&A and Discussion

### Content Authenticity Challenges

Francis Alaneme from the .ng domain name registry raised concerns about AI-generated content that cannot be distinguished from human-created materials, highlighting security implications of AI-generated video content being used to spread false information and potentially instigate violence.

Dr. Drew responded by mentioning the Content Authenticity Initiative (CAI) as an example of industry efforts to develop technical solutions for content authentication, whilst acknowledging implementation challenges in balancing comprehensive coverage with practical feasibility.

### Military Applications and Human-Machine Interaction

Commander Bagus Jatmiko, an Indonesian Navy officer and researcher in AI and information warfare, raised concerns about AI systems becoming misaligned during battlefield use. He introduced the concept of AI systems becoming “psychopathic” in their tendency to provide answers users want to hear rather than accurate assessments, warning this could be dangerous when commanders are under pressure and may accept AI-generated answers that confirm existing beliefs rather than challenge assumptions.

This highlighted the critical importance of training and education for AI system users in high-stakes environments where consequences of poor decision-making can be severe.

### Global Power Imbalances and Accountability

Judge George Aden Maggett from the Supreme Court of Egypt raised fundamental questions about responsibility and accountability, particularly regarding power imbalances between technology companies in developed countries and affected populations in developing nations. His intervention connected abstract policy considerations to real-world consequences, including civilian casualties in current conflicts involving AI-enabled weapons systems.

### Algorithm Transparency and Openness

Rowan Wilkinson from Chatham House asked about recent policy shifts regarding AI openness, prompting discussion about balancing transparency requirements with security and commercial considerations. This highlighted ongoing tensions between demands for accountability and practical constraints on algorithm disclosure.

## Key Themes and Takeaways

### Shared Responsibility Framework

All speakers agreed that responsibility for AI governance is distributed across stakeholders rather than concentrated in any single entity. This encompasses governments, industry, civil society, international organisations, and individuals, though speakers emphasised different implementation mechanisms.

### Multi-Stakeholder Engagement as Foundation

Strong consensus emerged that effective AI governance requires inclusive participation from diverse stakeholders, bringing together different perspectives and expertise to address complex technological challenges. Platforms like UNIDIR’s RAISE initiative provide valuable neutral spaces for knowledge-sharing that can transcend geopolitical constraints.

### Lifecycle Management Approach

Both industry and humanitarian perspectives converged on integrating governance considerations throughout the entire AI system lifecycle. This approach prevents governance from becoming mere compliance whilst ensuring ethical and legal considerations are substantively integrated into system design and operation.

### Technical Implementation Challenges

Several technical challenges remain unresolved, including practical implementation of content authentication systems, addressing adversarial attacks on AI systems used for peace and security monitoring, and developing effective mechanisms for preventing AI misalignment in operational contexts.

### Sustainability and Resource Concerns

Dr. He specifically noted funding challenges facing platforms like RAISE, emphasising that effective governance requires sustained commitment and resources from all stakeholders. This challenge could significantly impact long-term effectiveness of collaborative governance efforts.

## Conclusion

This discussion demonstrated both the complexity of AI governance challenges in security contexts and the potential for collaborative solutions. The consensus on fundamental principles of shared responsibility, multi-stakeholder engagement, and lifecycle management provides a foundation for developing governance frameworks that can enhance international peace and security whilst ensuring responsible AI development and deployment.

However, unresolved questions about sustainability, implementation, and accountability highlight significant work remaining to translate these principles into effective practice. The session’s combination of technical expertise, practical experience, and moral urgency suggests that effective AI governance will require continued collaboration across diverse stakeholder groups, sustained commitment to addressing global inequalities, and ongoing adaptation to evolving technological capabilities.

The optimistic perspective that innovation and security can coexist when guided by proper governance frameworks provides hope that these challenges can be addressed through collective effort rather than competitive approaches, though significant technical and institutional challenges remain to be resolved.

Yasmin Afina: Good afternoon from Oslo or good morning, wherever you are tuning in from. My name is Yasmin Afina, researcher from the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research. And I have the pleasure of moderating today’s session on responsible AI in security, governance, and even innovation. For those who are joining us in person, may I please highly encourage you to come to the front to this beautiful, almost roundtable to allow us to have a free-flowing roundtable discussion because this session forms part of our project related to the roundtable on AI security and ethics and in the spirit of having a roundtable, I do highly encourage everyone in the room who have just joined us today to join us in the front because I would like this to be very interactive and highly engaging. And for those who are joining online, thank you very much for joining us online, wherever you are. And as we are using Zoom, I do encourage you to use the raise hand function if you would like to take the floor, as again, this is a very highly interactive discussion. So again, my name is Yasmin Afina and I am very pleased to be joined today by three excellent speakers who, for those who are in the room, we do not see them yet, but for those online, you will see them. Dr. Jingjie He from the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, Michael Karimian from Microsoft, and Dr. Alexey Drew from the ICRC. And before we get into this, into a kick-off remarks from our excellent panelists, I would like to spend five minutes to introduce you a little bit to the roundtable for AI, security and ethics, and my institute, the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research. So, at a glance, UNIDIR is an autonomous institution within the United Nations. You can think of us like a think tank within the UN ecosystem. We’re independent from the Secretariat, and we’ve been established in 1980 at the height of the Cold War to ensure that the deliberations of states are well-informed and evidence-based in the area of disarmament. Of course, today, the landscape of disarmament is much different from what it was in 1980, and so we are conducting evidence-based policy research, we’re conducting multi-stakeholder engagement, and we want to make sure that we also facilitate dialogue where there is none, including on sensitive issues such as AI insecurity. So, one of the priority areas of UNIDIR and our work is related to AI and autonomy insecurity and defense, including the military domain, and what we’ve noticed is that in the light of this technology’s highly unique nature, we understood very quickly the importance of multi-stakeholder engagement and perspectives to obtain input on the implications of AI for international peace and security. So, we saw the need to provide a platform for open, inclusive, and meaningful dialogue. We saw this need as well to warrant public trust and legitimacy, and to ensure that these discussions are not just a one-way discussion, but actually are coming both from the bottom-up and from the top-up. but also from the top-down approach. We also want to make sure that we improve cross-disciplinary literacy and so on and so forth. You may see on the slides a number of very different incentives as to why the multi-stakeholder in perspective is indeed important on this issue. So that is why in March 2024, Unidire joined forces with Microsoft and in partnership with a series of other stakeholders. The establishment of the roundtable for AI security and ethics, ARRAISE. Our idea is to bring together experts and thought leaders from all around the world. So we have, for example, experts from China, from Russia, from the United States and United Kingdom, but also from Namibia, Ecuador, Kenya, India. We really want to make sure that we bridge divides and we bridge the conversation when there is none on these issues of AI and security. We aspire to lay the foundation for robust global AI governance grounded in cooperation, transparency, and mutual learning. With the idea that we should overcome any sense of competitiveness or distrust, and where there is any need for building distrust, this is where it would be. We also would like to use RAISE to foster and facilitate compliance with international law and ethical norms in the light of their importance in the age of innovation, warfare, and security, and destabilization. Finally, we would like to complement and reinforce responsible and ethical AI practices in the security and defense domains. Again, in an area where we are hoping to disrupt monopolies in the hands of the few, and to ensure that all voices are heard from all layers of society. Before we hear from our excellent panelists, I would like to provide an opportunity for both participants who are joining online, but also in person to share their thoughts via Slido. For those who are unfamiliar with Slido, Please ask our technicians to share the Slido presentation on screen. Thank you very much. First, before we start, I wanted to get your sense of what you think AI and international peace and security means for you. There is no right or wrong answer. And for that, what I would encourage you to do is to go on slido.com and put in the code 179812. For those who see the screen, use the QR code to join the conversation. And you will see a text box where you’ll be able to provide your input on what you think AI and international peace and security means for you. And again, no right or wrong answer. It really is for us to understand your thoughts and your perspectives and to really set the scene and see where things are at. Because, of course, it is important for us to share with you the work that we’re doing. But it’s also important for us to engage with the incredibly diverse IGF community to see what you think about this issue. So I will leave this poll open for a few minutes while you put in your contributions on what you think AI and international peace and security means for you. And there should be the results showing in. Perhaps if I can ask our technicians to see if there’s any input that has been added. So it is not showing on the screen, but oh, sorry, if you can please come back to Slido. Sorry, I’m bugging the technicians with my. I can see for those who are joined online that there’s quite a few responses already. So we see, for example, censorship fake news that has been generated using AI. I see that AI could be used for good or for bad, and I really appreciate this balanced approach to looking at AI for international peace and security. I see issues related to data privacy and treats on human intelligency. I also see the use of AI in the military, law enforcement, and how they are used responsibly in their respective fields, facial recognition at borders, countering the proliferation of AI-enabled weapons systems, and I also see automated target selection. So a very wide range of responses, and please keep adding your responses to this question. May I please ask our colleagues from IT to share again Slido, and this time for the next question. Oh perfect, now we can see them. So I think that this is great. Thank you very much to our IT team, and I’ve heard that there was a connectivity issue, so please bear with us as we navigate the hybrid space of discussions for this session. So now I’m going to get us to the second question. What should be the role of the multi-stakeholder community in the governance of AI and international peace and security? For those who are on Slido, it’s the same link. If you just refresh your page, or it should be refreshing on its own. If you can please add your responses, and they should start appearing. And for those who have just joined us, may I encourage you to open slido.com using your laptop or your phone by scanning the QR code to provide your input on what you think should be the role of the multistakeholder community in the governance of AI and international peace and security. So I see already one response on agreeing on and implementing norms. I do encourage everyone to keep sharing their discussions and their reflections on what they think should be the role of the multistakeholder community because that will also help us at UNIDIR to inform our work on this and how to better engage with the multistakeholder community. So I see big commitments and I would love to hear your thoughts when we’ll open the floor on what sort of commitments do you think that the multistakeholder community could have a role in. I also see industry and AI and perhaps again when we’ll open the floor for discussions, I would love to hear your thoughts on what they mean. And once again, for those who are joining us in the room physically, may I encourage you highly to come into the stage to join us in the middle to enable us to have a roundtable discussion so that it is interactive. I see a lot of input into the slido and I do see, for example, trust building standards proposed solutions, technical standards again, actionable legislation, responsible and peace. So I do appreciate you really putting a lot of input into these discussions and now that we’ve had this little warm-up exercise, I will please ask our IT colleagues to get back us to the PowerPoint for me to introduce once again our speakers for today’s discussions. So the way it will work for the rest of the session as we have 45 minutes. I will be sharing, I will be providing the floor to three speakers who are joining us online for kick-off remarks, who are supposed to be introductory and generate more questions and answers perhaps on very select issues related to AI, international peace and security. And then I will open the floor for both for those who are joining us online but also in person for a discussion on perhaps reactions to what you’ve heard, perhaps to elaborate a bit on the questions that you have, on the answers that you have shared with us and also perhaps if you have any questions for our panellists and speakers who are joining us today. So again for those who have just joined, we are joined virtually by three excellent speakers Dr Jingjie He from the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, Dr Alexi Drew from the International Committee of the Red Cross and Michael Karimi on Microsoft. For those who are joining in person, I assure you they are online and they should be appearing on the screen when it is their turn to speak. So now may I please turn online and ask Jingjie to provide us with her opening remarks. May I please ask the IT colleagues to show Jingjie on the screen. Jingjie, you have the floor. Thank you very much. Thank you Yasmin. Very nice to be meeting you all and thank you for the invitation. Always a pleasure to join the conversation just to see your face on screen.

Jingjie He: So I think the inclusive engagement across stakeholders is essential for the effective global governance of artificial intelligence and the main reason will be that technological challenges I believe can often be addressed through technological solutions. However, the identification of the true nature of artificial intelligence and artificial intelligence The nature of these challenges requires an interdisciplinary and multi-stakeholder approach. Such an inclusive approach ensures that a wide range of knowledge, expertise, and perspectives, often complementary in nature, are taken into account in shaping responsible and equitable understandings, norms, policies for AI development and deployment. So here I want to take the opportunity to really underscore the importance of the UN-sponsored platform, such as UNODIR’s RISE that Jasmine just introduced, and the IGF, and the Global Digital Compact, etc. So these platforms play a critical role in enabling multi-stakeholder engagements. What sets them apart from more state-centric mechanisms is their unique ability to provide neutral, depoliticized, and inclusive spaces. So within those platforms, knowledge-sharing and confidence-building can take place beyond the constraints of geopolitical tensions and national interests, allowing for more constructive, balanced, and therefore more promising outcomes. But of course, one dilemma that I want to point out is that such platforms, especially like RISE, do face funding issues and questions about how to make the project more sustainable. I remember the first time I attended RISE and Jasmine was sharing the concern that this project should be more sustainable and stuff like that. I do believe that Jasmine and Michael have done a great job. supporting this program, but I do believe that this should be a more collective effort for all of us to bring resources and contribute to this project and these communities. So Yasmin also asked me to provide some concrete examples for how AI fosters international peace and security. So one of my recent projects is about AI and satellite remote sensing. So satellite remote sensing has been increasingly recognized as a critical tool for international peace and security. In recent years there has been a growing interest in applying AI and machine learning to enhance analytical efficiency of satellite imageries. So one example is Amnesty International in collaboration with a company called Element AI as well as almost 29,000 volunteers. So they develop tools to automatically analyze satellite imagery for monitoring conflicts in Darfur. So this is just one of the many examples of how AI can empower satellite imagery and benefits for international peace, security, and non-proliferation missions, etc. Of course, I always care about the challenges. So one potential challenge is, as my previous research shows, that there’s always a challenge of adversarial attacks in such systems which will make the system more vulnerable and our discussion more interesting and challenging. So I will stop for now and I will be happy to answer questions. Jasmin?

Yasmin Afina: Thank you very much, Jingjie He, for this very short and crisp but also very provocative introductory remarks and I do appreciate you noting as well the difficulty that the UN is currently facing on fundraising and of course the UNIDIR as a voluntary funded institute we do rely on voluntary contributions so I do appreciate you noting as well the dire situation that we’re facing today to enable such dialogue from happening but also I appreciate you sharing the importance of AI to enhance the ability to analyze and to monitor conflicts including by civil society organizations so it does show the potential of AI to enhance international peace and security while of course being balanced by the risks that may resurface including with regards to adversarial attacks on these AI technologies so I think that one key aspect that you also shared with us is the importance of engaging all kinds of stakeholders and we’re very fortunate today to be joined by Michael Karimian from Microsoft Michael, may I please ask now that you provide us with your key coffee marks particularly to see what do you think is the role of industries in supporting responsible AI practices for international peace and security Michael, over to you

Michael Karimian: Thank you Yasmin, it’s a pleasure to join you all and thank you Yasmin not just for facilitating today’s discussion but of course of being an essential partner in the work of the roundtable for AI security and ethics as we’ve heard and as I think we already know AI is and will rapidly reshape international security dynamics and the governance frameworks needed to ensure its responsible use urgently require quite robust multi-stakeholder engagement just as Jingjie outlined and industry in particular has a critical role to play obviously as developers and deployers of AI technology but also I think as proactive stakeholders in establishing norms and standards and safeguards to mitigate risks associated with AI in security contexts. And the roundtable for AI security and ethics has already quite clearly highlighted that while states and international organizations are vital in setting norms and regulations, industry in particular has quite practical contributions to governance, which I think can’t be overstated. So for example, industry actors often are the first to encounter and understand AI risks and vulnerabilities, in part due to their direct involvement in developing and deploying these technologies. That can put industry players in a unique position to provide expertise on technical feasibility, operational impacts, and risk mitigation strategies, which are of course essential for effective governance. And through RAISE, industry stakeholders, including Microsoft, have already identified several key contributions that can be made. Firstly, transparency and accountability. Industry must develop and adhere to clear standards that ensure AI systems used in security applications are transparent in their capabilities and limitations, with accountability mechanisms clearly articulated. And that involves quite robust documentation practices, as well as continuous monitoring and the capability to audit AI systems, which together I think provide greater predictability and trust. Second and relatedly is the topic of due diligence. The Secretary General’s upcoming report and also ongoing UN General Assembly discussions will likely continue to underscore the importance of due diligence, because industry actors have a responsibility to implement robust due diligence processes across the AI lifecycle, from design and development through to deployment and eventual decommissioning. And this aligns closely with lifecycle management approaches already being emphasized by both UNIDIR and the ICRC in its submission to the Secretary General. and others. This is the topic of proactive collaboration. Industry should actively contribute technical expertise and capacity-building initiatives, particularly in regions where regulatory frameworks are still emerging. Effective governance, of course, requires global equity in knowledge and resources, and so initiatives such as RAISE, but also RE-AIM, the responsible AI in the military domain process, we see them promoting practical and inclusive governance strategies which serve as a strong foundation. And industry collaboration through those platforms can, of course, further amplify these efforts. I think on the topic of reducing disparities and capacity-building and knowledge transfer, industry really does have a significant technical and expertise resources that are needed to support governance, civil society, and international organizations, particularly those from the global south, in understanding and assessing and mitigating AI risks. So strengthening global capacity is really key to ensuring inclusive governance and avoiding exacerbating already existing inequalities and security capabilities. I guess if we look ahead, industry’s engagement should continue to be structured, it should continue to be sustained, and it should, of course, be substantive. And this means participating in and supporting frameworks established through the United Nations and other multilateral venues, as well as initiatives such as RAISE to collectively shape responsible AI governance and security. And I think that we can ensure that our collective or collaborative efforts lead not only to innovative but enhanced global stability, resilience, and trust. I look forward to the discussion.

Yasmin Afina: Thank you very much, Michael, for, again, for a very comprehensive overview of what you think should be the role of industries in promoting and enhancing responsible AI practices for international peace and security, both as developers but also as deployers. And I do appreciate your remarks as well, your points on The industry is needing to be proactive actors to mitigate the risks and harms that may enter from these technologies. I also note from your remarks the importance of implementing feasible and effective risk mitigation mechanisms throughout the life cycle of technologies for AI and for international peace and security. And we’re very fortunate to be joined by Dr. Alexi Drew from the International Committee of the Red Cross who’s been our expert within the race, who’s been promoting relentlessly on the importance of a life cycle management approach to the governance of AI and security. So now may I please ask Alexi to come to the floor and also share her remarks on this point. Thank you very much, Alexi.

Alexi Drew: Thank you very much, Yasmina. Thank you, Michael, for setting the stage for me. It makes it a lot easier for me to continue my crusade to make life cycle management a feature that everyone is aware of and be more aware of the necessity of why it needs to be approached and understood and actually engaged with rather than as a secondary feature. And that secondariness is actually one of the key reasons why life cycle management is critical because we’ve been talking about governance quite a bit. We’ve been talking about the need to be responsible and ethical and how we design, develop and deploy these systems. But governance is not something that can be added on after the fact. It’s not an afterthought. It needs to be something which is designed to fit in each stage of the life cycle. Now, for the purposes of this discussion, I’m going to break life cycles down into very simple segments. In this case, we’re going to talk about the development stage, the validation stage and the deployment stage. And I thought it would be helpful if I gave you a particular series of risks with hypothetical context where those things are actually producing risks now so we can understand why governance at each stage is important. So one of these risks that I see them and the ICRC approaches them is the trend that we have tried to engage towards a localisation of aid. and assistance is reversed through the utilization of systems which are by their default and their design not local. So for example at the development stage you might use data which is taken from the global north, train a model which is designed to be deployed in the global south, it doesn’t reflect the realities. A predictive model for example based on this for delivery of humanitarian aid is going to prioritize the delivery of aid to certain groups as opposed to others based upon the data that has been selected for it which is not applicable to the local context and that’s going to effectively create a compounding problem. At the validation stage localization could also create problems if it’s not properly taken into account with regards to localization. If you test something outside of the local context in which you intend to deploy it you’re not actually testing for the scenario and circumstance and the context which the thing is going to be used in. So your ability to be sure that it’s delivering as expected is undermined, you’re ignoring the social, economic, political dynamics of the context in which something is going to be ultimately deployed in. So our clean test beds which might be suitable for some circumstances are not likely to be suitable for those if you try and use the same system in multiple places. At the deployment stage for example we might be using aid algorithms that worked in one context that systematically exclude marginalized communities in another. So we might have a refugee processing system which trained on one population works perfectly fine but fails catastrophically when applied in a different way, slightly different linguistic characteristics, social characteristics, economic needs and requirements. When you take these across these localized issues at the development stage, the validation and deployment stage this is a compounding of problems and risks which you can’t then remove by a set of governance which is attached to the end of a life cycle. It’s something which has to be addressed at each of these stages to ensure that these risks are avoided and not compounded. There’s also the problem of inscrutability. Now inscrutability is almost the opposite of transparency. and explainability that Michael mentioned earlier. But sometimes inscrutability is a design choice that takes place at a certain point or several points in the life cycle. At the development stage, rather than choosing something which is open-source understood as a model, you might choose a proprietary algorithm which is more niche, more sophisticated, but a complex neural network selected because it seems more appropriate and more complicated. When actually a simpler, more explainable model could do the job, it’s going to introduce inscrutability into the system at the development stage. Further on at the stage where you’re actually validating or generating a model, you’re then going to create a system which is so complex that not only can the end users, the subjects of the system not understand decisions being made, but the users themselves may not be able to, particularly if these users haven’t been the designers, they simply purchased the systems from those who asked to procure it for them. What’s the real world impact of this? Well, it means that humanitarians or aid suppliers on the ground can’t explain to individuals why the decisions are being made as they are. They can’t explain why aid isn’t being delivered to one group while it is to another. They can’t explain why some resources are available in one place or not another. That undermines trust in both the humanitarian sector, but also in the systems being used, which further means that in the long term, this life cycle of a redeployment redesign is going to have less than an effective impact on the very communities and the very peace building that it’s designed to develop. And the final point I’d raise is that life cycles are often, and we use the term cycle, but what do we mean by cyclical? And what does that actually imply to how things are used? Well, the problem is, is that if you look at a life cycle as a series of stages that are begun at one end and produce a tour at the other, and then perhaps cycle round again, it seems like a conveyor belt. It could be seen and operated on operationally by the designers, procurers, and the ultimate deployers of these systems as a series of check boxes that you move from one stage to the other once certain things have been completed. But what that means is that we have. rather than a series of checks and balances and means of ensuring that these risks are not compounded, we have a series of things which is simply checked off as complete without sufficient evidence to the fact without the ability to understand is this system suitable for what it’s being used for. And when that’s then recycled and the requirements might be changed and this tool is deployed in a different context for a different purpose, and then we find ourselves further compounding the issues that we saw before. So what I would like to say is what we need to be aware of with this life cycle finally taking away from this is that if we are to ensure that these systems are being used in a manner which is humane, ethical and principled and adding to our security and building peace rather than the creating or recreating rather the conditions that have led to insecurity, unethical practice and a risk to both civilians, combatants and other already highly impacted and at risk individuals, we need to ensure that not only do we have a shared understanding of how these tools are made on the different stages of their life cycle, we need to understand and come up with a means of technical, ethical and humanitarian governance which intersects with all of these stages effectively. And I’ll leave it there and look forward to your questions.

Yasmin Afina: Thank you very much, Alexey, for again this very comprehensive overview of why the life cycle management approach to the governance of AI is indeed important. I particularly like the way that you ended the discussions and your remarks by noting that this is a prerequisite to ensure that these technologies indeed will build peace instead of exacerbating the sources of insecurity and instability. So on that note we have a bit around 20 minutes I would say for an open discussion. I would highly encourage for those who are both in the room in Oslo but also who are joining us virtually, to ask questions to our panelists, but also building on the Slido discussions that we had earlier, where we collected your responses of what AI, international peace and security means, but also the role of the multi-stakeholder community. I would encourage you to also take the floor to elaborate a bit more on these answers. But also if you have anything else to add based on, for example, we heard from Alex the importance of local contexts. How is AI being deployed and used, for example, in your respective regions or states or your organization to build peace and to enhance international peace and security? So on that note, I would like to open the floor now for those who are joining in person and online. For those who are online, I will keep an eye on the Zoom. But for those who are joining in person, I believe there’s a microphone on the side for those who are joining from the floor, or perhaps from those who are joining on the center table, if they would like to take the floor. I think there are microphones in front of you. So on that note, I’m opening the floor now and perhaps give a few seconds as well for you to collect your thoughts or your questions. The gentleman on my left, I think you have a question. Please introduce yourself and share your name, where you’re coming from. And also if you have a question, if it is directed specifically at a speaker, please do so as well. Thank you very much.

Audience: Okay, thank you very much. My name is Francis Alaneme. I’m from the .ng domain name registry. And so it’s just more of a comment. So I know AI is widely used and AI is something that a lot of persons are jumping into and it’s flying everywhere. A lot of contents are generated with AI. And I think, so part of the things that… The AI adoption is driving us, is trying to make imaginary things come real and I think part of the algorithm should look at ways to actually You know make AI Generated contents have more of a signature that okay people can actually easily say or can actually identify what AI is Generated and what humans actually generated, you know, when you look at some video contents You see that a lot of you know, there are video contents that you see and you think they are real and you know Those kind of contents can be used to pass some kind of false informations Can be used to actually instigate some kind of em, you know violence in some places, you know where you see some kind of contents that Actually not, you know culture friendly or something that can actually instigate some kind of thoughts in mind of people so I think there should be more of em, you know, that’s kind of a Signature or that kind of a you know thing to identify AI generated contents and human Contents. Thank you

Yasmin Afina: Thank you very much sir for Outlining the importance of ensuring some sort of signature or at least means to verify What is AI generated? What is not AI generated and perhaps the security implications of not being able to differentiate between the two? I see that we have a hand raised virtually by Bagus Chatmiko who I know is joining us from very late from Indonesia perhaps may I ask our IT technicians to

Bagus Jatmiko: Display him on the screen and Bagus, please. You have the floor now. Thank you very much Bagus if you can please unmute yourself and Turn on your camera if you if you would like to intervene. Okay, can you hear me now? Yeah, we can hear you. Okay, so I don’t know whether. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Sorry. Oh, there you go. Sorry. Sorry for the connection and also the technical issues. So I see a very familiar faces in this conference and also would like to bring some concern. I also would like to maybe bring some question to the panelists also in the way that I’m working in the defense sector. And AI is being used exponentially. And I also talked about this during the ICRC conference virtually last week, if I’m not mistaken. And I bring concern about how AI is being used in a way that some of the commander or the user within the military domain is unaware of the possibility that AI might be corrupted during the use. Like what we call as the emergent misalignment or there’s also the misalignment with the system itself. And I also would like to bring the concern about the possibility of the maybe it’s not possibility. This the tendency of AI being psychopath in a way that I would also maybe provide the answers that the users would like to bring or would like to seek. And being in the battlefield, that kind of tendency would be very, in a way, very risky and maybe dangerous and how they can actually misalign the user or the commander in the battlefield. In taking what you may call the decision that might increase the risk for the humanity and also for the civilian population And this goes to my question, how would you all maybe provide the attention and maybe the focus on how the AI is being used, especially in the military domain? This is for all the panelists. And how would you maybe encourage more into the use of AI, responsible AI within the military domain? Because if I relate it to the humanitarian law, somehow in the fog of war, in the condition of uncertainty, mostly commander would like to see the quick answers provided by AIDSS. And maybe they just ignore the possibility or the existence of law or humanitarian law in this case. Thank you, Vargus. Perhaps, may I please ask that you also introduce yourself for those who are not familiar with your work and where you’re coming from? Yeah, sorry for not introducing myself. So my name is Commander Bagus Jadmiko, and I’m actually Indonesian Navy officers. And I’m also a researcher in AI and information warfare that bring me to the attention that the use of AI within the military domain and defense sector. Thank you.

Yasmin Afina: Thank you very much, Bagus. I see a gentleman here would like to ask a question or perhaps show some comments, and then I’ll get back to our panelists for some reactions or answers to the questions. Gentleman, please. Good evening, everybody. Allow me to raise a very short question in the beginning. Who

Audience: is responsible for the mitigation of AI risks? This is a very short question for me. Is it high tech big companies who are creating AI and developing AI? Because it is not in the hand of the government, especially in the developing countries right now. So let me have the big issue here. While I’m following the rapid development advancement of AI, especially in fields which are related to security, I am terrorized, you know, because we are I am not going to mention or to name any country now, but we can see how AI is being used in current ongoing wars. And the victims behind the use of AI technology in autonomous weapon, for example, how civilians are being killed without accountability. So for this reason, looking from a developing country’s perspective, which have nothing to do in their hands right now, it is all in the hands of the big tech companies which exist in the powerful countries. So this is my issue here, how we are going to mitigate ourselves this risk. Thank you. May I please ask that you introduce yourself? Sorry, can you please introduce yourself in the microphone just to sort of we know who you are, and where you’re coming from? My name is George Aden Maggett. I am a judge at the Supreme Court of Egypt and I am also an honorary professor of law at Durham University, the UK.

Yasmin Afina: Thank you. Perfect. Thank you very much, sir. So, in the interest of time, I realize that we have 10 to 15 minutes left, so I just want to make sure and check in the room virtually or online, virtually or in person, if there’s any further questions or comments or remarks for our panelists or to add to the discussions today. If not, I know that, Alexi, you’ve also put in the chat that there is an ongoing project on adding signatures to AI-generated content, the Content Authenticity Initiative, which you might be interested in, and perhaps, Alexi, you’ll be able to elaborate a bit more. Before I give the floor back to our panelists, I do note a question from Rowan Wilkinson from Chatham House. Hi, Rowan. Many policymakers are discussing the importance of AI openness in civilian contexts, including in meeting safety commitments through OSS and community oversight. Does the panel foresee a policy shift around openness in the AI peace and security domain? So, we do have quite a few questions and remarks and also reflections. So, we had a question surrounding AI authenticity and the implications of not knowing what is generated or not, and the destabilizing effects. We had a question from Bagros on the commander and perhaps the human-machine interaction in the battlefield, and perhaps also how do we make sure that the use of AI remains indeed responsible in the hands of the commander, particularly under situations of pressure, such as in the battlefield. We had a question of who should be responsible for the mitigation of risks of AI, particularly in the light of ongoing conflicts today and the… implications of civilians. And finally, we have a question on openness in the AI peace and security domains. So perhaps may I ask, in the interest of time, Jingjie to start us off with three to four minutes. Please feel free to answer any questions you may think or any other element that you would like to add based on what you’ve heard today. Jingjie, please, you have the floor. Thank you for your questions. So first, the question is from Bagus. I think the first thing we need to do is knowledge sharing, because I assume that in military, when you deploy an AI

Jingjie He: system, you developed it first as a project and you deploy it. So many times, based on my experience from the civilian field and industries, many times the one who makes the decision whether to use, deploy or complete the project may not always be the one who understands the technologies. So knowledge sharing is very important. Transparency is important. Those people who make the decisions need to understand the technology perspective. And also, the second point I want to make is the importance of incentives. It is very important for the militaries to understand that AI is not only a force multiplier, but also a threat multiplier. It is not only about the risk of civilians. It’s also about increasing risk of your own combatants when you have a poorly designed, unverified AI system with uncertainties and you cannot be confident about it and there’s a whole black box. So this kind of incentive is very important. With this understanding, I believe many militaries will be more incentivized to improve their systems? A quick answer for the second question, who’s responsible for AI governance? I think everyone. Like, I’m sure Michael will talk more about from the industry point of view, but I do sense that everyone is responsible for, you know, raising a voice, being sensitive about the importance of AI governance, you know, incentivize or promoting a dialogue about AI risks. And the third question about AI openness, I’m actually not sure what is the AI openness, because if you’re talking about openness about the algorithm, I think it’s very difficult because when we’re in the industry, where we go for due diligence or technological scouting, we ask the company, what is it? What’s your core technology? They told us, they were likely to tell us it’s their own IP and they will not be able to reveal it. But look, we have a good system and it works perfectly, just believing our results. This is what happens. So if you’re talking about openness, about AI algorithm, I have a huge question mark about the feasibilities and possibility of this kind of solutions. Thank you.

Yasmin Afina: Thank you, Jingjie He, for your very sharp response and also the fact that you’re actually joining us from very far and it’s very late at home. So thank you very much for this. Michael, would you like to intervene now? Thank you, Yasmin. Happy to do so. A shared flag, Zoom keeps telling me that my internet connection is unstable. So if I pause at any moment, that’ll be the reason why.

Michael Karimian: In answer to the questions, Frances’s question on AI signature, I appreciate the question. I think one way of thinking about this is, are there specific use cases? where we really need AI signatures or would we be comfortable with other use cases where we don’t need them? I suspect that’s possibly the direction we will go in but of course the proliferation of AI solutions means that there’ll always be solutions or actors who would circumvent that anyway but that doesn’t downplay the importance of having AI signatures in the first place. To Bagus’ question on emergent misalignment and AI-supported DSS, I think this Bagus, your question really points to something which we’ve certainly discussed in the context of the roundtable for AI security and ethics and that’s the challenge which exists at the moment in having access to meaningful and trustworthy use cases to understand in very effective ways actually how AI is being used. I think the academic community, civil society, industry, governments actually at the moment we are relying on a number of examples which you know partly come from here say or just perhaps aren’t that reflective of how AI is being used in security domains but I’m hopeful that as AI is further adopted in various security domains, transparency around use cases will improve and then we’ll be better able to understand implications of them. To the question from a colleague from Egypt slash the University of Durham, change is right, who has responsibility? Everyone. From a human rights perspective, of course states have the state duty to protect, respect and fulfil human rights. Industry has a corporate responsibility to respect human rights and individuals have a right to remedy when their rights have been harmed. Focusing just specifically on the role of industry, what that means is that all companies under the UN guiding principles on business human rights have a responsibility to ensure that their products and services are not being used in ways to facilitate or contribute to serious human rights abuses and this means that any engagement with a government, ministry of defence, armed forces, especially in the context of ongoing armed conflict or where there are credible allegations of international law violations, must be subject to rigorous due diligence, clear red lines on misuse and where risks cannot be mitigated there should be a refusal to provide or maintain support. And actually that’s not new, this has been an established position for a number of years now, but of course matters there is implementation. And lastly to Rowan’s question, yes I would hope so, that we will see more openness and actually one example of that is the RE-AIM process which I mentioned earlier, responsible AI in the military domain process, last year hosted in South Korea and in the next 6-12 months will be hosted in Spain and so anyone in the audience that are stakeholders who are interested in this should certainly keep an eye on the RE-AIM process. Thank you very much Michael for this and the importance of differentiating of course principles but also actual implementation and the importance as well of human rights and providing a framework to ensure that everyone is indeed held accountable but also to ensure that civilians have a right to remedy including in the context of AI for international peace and security. Finally Alexi would you like to have any concluding remarks and responses to any of the questions raised?

Alexi Drew: Thank you, I’ll run through these nice and quickly in the interest of giving people their time. I’d like to start with the silver lining to the signatures and the kind of demarking in authentic content or AI generated content from human generated content. As someone who used to work in arms control there’s a great thing to kind of bear in note that every time a new threat arises or a new innovation creates a threat it’s very quick for a counter to be developed against it and that is just as true in the identification of inauthentically generated or machine generated content as it is with any other. risk of this type that we’ve seen before. So I’m encouraged to see that it’s not just the CAI that exists in this space. There are a number of initiatives coming with technical and non-technical means to kind of give us the means of, as Michael says, in critical circumstances, being able to identify when content has been generated as opposed to when it has been created and is authentic. On the question from Vagos’ reference, compliance and command as component, this is actually part of what I was referencing when I was talking about the need to ensure that governance, both ethical, legal and economic, is built in at every stage of the design of life cycle. If we take IHL as part of that governance, a system should be designed, trained, tested, authenticated and verified with the data selected with its need to be compliant with IHL in mind. If it isn’t, that’s when you’re introducing the risks that something could be designed which is either completely incompatible with IHL or is open to being – or is possible for it to be used in a manner which is non-compliant. If you actually treat the life cycle effectively and how you incorporate IHL across it rather than just in a section of it or in, say, the assurance stage or treat it as a checkbox exercise, then you can actually constrain the risks of that going wrong. That being said, there are other components to that. The fact that any user of a system should be trained to understand what it can and what it cannot do, what does it look like when it fails, what are the circumstances which have led to its failure in testing, what influences its level of accuracy so they can make informed decisions as to how much and whether, in fact, to trust an AI-based tool system or weapon system, be it decision-making system, strategic or tactical, or be it a direct weapon system. And it should also be that in some cases, these tools simply aren’t used because it’s understood because of how These systems have been designed with IHL baked into each part of it, but in the context you’re seeking to apply how they simply cannot be compliant with IHL. On the subject of trust around these tools and how particularly LLMs, some of them have been found to be very non-critical of their human users and how that might influence it. Yes, that is a problem. They’re not designed to be critical and to push back on their human users. They’re designed to be supportive administrative assistants that say yes a lot and that should be something which is understood as a potential failing and implications to how a military should design, create doctrine and then deploy a tool. Moving quickly on to the who owns it, where’s the responsibility. I agree with both previous speakers, Jingjie and Michael. Everyone owns the responsibility here, but there are levers despite the complex ownership structures between the private sector, the public sector, the global north and south and those with less seeming control that everyone has a lever they can use here. Be it the taking part in globalized standard setting organizations, technical or non-technical, or be it in procurement strategies and procurement standards. If governance is critical, IHL, ethical, social and economic, then it should be a condition of procurement from government to suppliers. So then even if they don’t own the system or the services required to operate the system, say it’s AI as a service, the thing has been designed to set these standards and it’s legally necessary to do so to meet the procurement standards. Finally, on a point on openness, I’m going to try and be positive with a bit of negativity here. I think we’re at a point where innovation is being posed as a solution to our increasing state of insecurity and a risk to peace. And it’s been posited as a zero-sum game between innovation and security or insecurity and constraint on innovation. That is not the case. You can in fact have security and innovation with adherence to values.

Yasmin Afina: and Alexu. Thank you very much indeed Alexu for ending us on a positive note but also for you know for Jingjie He to also add a point on the fact that Chinese social media also had signatures to AI generated content and I think that also adds to the importance of collective responsibility to ensure responsible AI and international peace and security and I do know the importance of incentivization noted by Jingjie He, I know the importance of human rights as a framework, compliance with IHL and yeah on that hopefully positive note that we end we’re ending this workshop. Thank you very much everyone for joining us today either online or in person. Please join me in giving a round of applause to our speakers online. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. . . .

Agreement points

Universal responsibility for AI governance

Speakers

– Jingjie He
– Michael Karimian
– Alexi Drew

Arguments

Everyone has responsibility for AI governance and raising awareness about AI risks

Companies have responsibility under UN guiding principles to ensure products aren’t used for human rights abuses

All stakeholders have levers they can use, including participation in standard-setting organizations and procurement strategies

Summary

All three main speakers agree that responsibility for AI governance is shared across all stakeholders – governments, industry, civil society, and individuals – rather than being concentrated in any single entity.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights principles

Multi-stakeholder engagement is essential for effective AI governance

Speakers

– Jingjie He
– Michael Karimian
– Yasmin Afina

Arguments

Inclusive engagement across stakeholders is essential for effective global AI governance because technological challenges require interdisciplinary approaches

Industry has critical role as developers and deployers, plus proactive stakeholders in establishing norms and safeguards

Multi-stakeholder engagement is essential for AI governance to bridge divides and overcome competitiveness and distrust

Summary

There is strong consensus that effective AI governance requires inclusive participation from diverse stakeholders, bringing together different perspectives, expertise, and capabilities to address complex technological challenges.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights principles

Lifecycle approach is crucial for AI governance

Speakers

– Michael Karimian
– Alexi Drew

Arguments

Industry must develop clear standards ensuring AI systems are transparent with accountability mechanisms

Governance cannot be added as afterthought but must be designed to fit each stage of the lifecycle

Summary

Both speakers emphasize that governance considerations must be integrated throughout the entire AI system lifecycle, from development through deployment, rather than being treated as an add-on or afterthought.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights principles

Need for technical solutions to AI content authenticity challenges

Speakers

– Michael Karimian
– Alexi Drew
– Francis Alaneme (Audience)

Arguments

AI signatures may be needed for specific critical use cases rather than universal application

Counter-innovations quickly develop against new threats, including tools for identifying machine-generated content

AI-generated content needs signatures for identification to prevent false information and violence instigation

Summary

There is agreement that technical solutions are needed to address AI-generated content authenticity, though with recognition that implementation may vary by use case and that counter-measures are rapidly developing.

Topics

Content policy | Cybersecurity

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize the critical importance of knowledge transfer and transparency between those who develop AI technologies and those who make decisions about their deployment, particularly in security contexts.

Speakers

– Jingjie He
– Michael Karimian

Arguments

Knowledge sharing between technology developers and decision-makers is crucial in military contexts

Industry actors are first to encounter AI risks due to direct involvement in development and deployment

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Cybersecurity

Both speakers highlight the critical need for military personnel to understand AI system limitations and potential failure modes to make informed decisions about trust and deployment in security contexts.

Speakers

– Alexi Drew
– Bagus Jatmiko

Arguments

Military users need training to understand AI system capabilities, limitations, and failure modes

AI systems in military face risks of emergent misalignment and tendency to provide answers users want to hear

Topics

Cybersecurity | Legal and regulatory

Both speakers maintain an optimistic view that AI can be a positive force for peace and security when properly governed, rejecting the notion that innovation must come at the expense of security or ethical considerations.

Speakers

– Jingjie He
– Alexi Drew

Arguments

AI can empower international peace, security, and non-proliferation missions through improved analytical capabilities

Innovation can coexist with security and adherence to values, not a zero-sum game

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights principles

Unexpected consensus

Global South representation and power imbalances

Speakers

– Yasmin Afina
– George Aden Maggett (Audience)
– Alexi Drew

Arguments

AI governance should disrupt monopolies and ensure all voices from all layers of society are heard

Big tech companies in powerful countries hold significant control while developing countries have limited influence

All stakeholders have levers they can use, including participation in standard-setting organizations and procurement strategies

Explanation

Unexpectedly, there was strong consensus across speakers from different sectors (UN, judiciary, ICRC) about the need to address power imbalances between Global North tech companies and Global South stakeholders, with practical suggestions for how developing countries can exercise influence through procurement and standards participation.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights principles | Development

Limitations of algorithm transparency

Speakers

– Jingjie He
– Michael Karimian

Arguments

Algorithm openness faces feasibility challenges due to intellectual property concerns

AI signatures may be needed for specific critical use cases rather than universal application

Explanation

Both academic and industry perspectives unexpectedly converged on the practical limitations of full algorithmic transparency, acknowledging intellectual property constraints while still supporting targeted transparency measures for critical applications.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Intellectual property rights

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion revealed remarkably high consensus among speakers on fundamental principles of AI governance, including shared responsibility, multi-stakeholder engagement, lifecycle management, and the need for technical solutions to content authenticity. There was also unexpected agreement on addressing Global South representation and practical limitations of algorithmic transparency.

Consensus level

High level of consensus with significant implications for AI governance frameworks. The agreement across diverse stakeholders (academic, industry, humanitarian, military, judicial) suggests these principles have broad legitimacy and could form the foundation for effective global AI governance mechanisms. The consensus on shared responsibility and multi-stakeholder approaches particularly validates current UN and multilateral efforts in this space.

Different viewpoints

Feasibility of AI algorithm transparency and openness

Speakers

– Jingjie He
– Michael Karimian

Arguments

Algorithm openness faces feasibility challenges due to intellectual property concerns

Industry must develop clear standards ensuring AI systems are transparent with accountability mechanisms

Summary

Jingjie He expresses strong skepticism about algorithm transparency due to IP concerns and industry practices of protecting core technology, while Michael Karimian advocates for transparency standards and accountability mechanisms in AI systems used in security applications.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Intellectual property rights

Unexpected differences

Practical implementation of AI transparency in security contexts

Speakers

– Jingjie He
– Michael Karimian

Arguments

Algorithm openness faces feasibility challenges due to intellectual property concerns

Industry must develop clear standards ensuring AI systems are transparent with accountability mechanisms

Explanation

This disagreement is unexpected because both speakers are advocates for responsible AI governance, yet they have fundamentally different views on whether transparency is achievable. Jingjie He’s practical industry experience leads her to question feasibility, while Michael Karimian’s industry perspective emphasizes the necessity and possibility of transparency standards.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Intellectual property rights

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion shows remarkably high consensus among speakers on fundamental principles of AI governance, with only one significant disagreement on algorithm transparency feasibility. Most differences are about emphasis and approach rather than fundamental disagreement.

Disagreement level

Low level of disagreement with high implications – the transparency debate touches on core tensions between security, commercial interests, and accountability that are central to AI governance in security contexts. The consensus on multi-stakeholder responsibility suggests strong foundation for collaborative approaches, but the transparency disagreement highlights practical implementation challenges that could impede progress.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize the critical importance of knowledge transfer and transparency between those who develop AI technologies and those who make decisions about their deployment, particularly in security contexts.

Speakers

– Jingjie He
– Michael Karimian

Arguments

Knowledge sharing between technology developers and decision-makers is crucial in military contexts

Industry actors are first to encounter AI risks due to direct involvement in development and deployment

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Cybersecurity

Both speakers highlight the critical need for military personnel to understand AI system limitations and potential failure modes to make informed decisions about trust and deployment in security contexts.

Speakers

– Alexi Drew
– Bagus Jatmiko

Arguments

Military users need training to understand AI system capabilities, limitations, and failure modes

AI systems in military face risks of emergent misalignment and tendency to provide answers users want to hear

Topics

Cybersecurity | Legal and regulatory

Both speakers maintain an optimistic view that AI can be a positive force for peace and security when properly governed, rejecting the notion that innovation must come at the expense of security or ethical considerations.

Speakers

– Jingjie He
– Alexi Drew

Arguments

AI can empower international peace, security, and non-proliferation missions through improved analytical capabilities

Innovation can coexist with security and adherence to values, not a zero-sum game

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights principles

Key takeaways

Multi-stakeholder engagement is essential for effective AI governance in security contexts, requiring inclusive participation from governments, industry, civil society, and international organizations

Industry has a critical responsibility as both developers and deployers of AI technology, with obligations under UN guiding principles to prevent human rights abuses

Lifecycle management approach is crucial – governance must be integrated at development, validation, and deployment stages rather than added as an afterthought

AI serves as both a force multiplier and threat multiplier in military contexts, requiring careful consideration of risks to both civilians and combatants

Everyone shares responsibility for AI governance, though different stakeholders have different levers of influence including procurement standards and participation in standard-setting organizations

AI has positive applications for peace and security, such as enhancing satellite imagery analysis for conflict monitoring and humanitarian purposes

Content authenticity and AI signature identification are important for preventing misinformation and violence instigation

Knowledge sharing between technology developers and decision-makers is crucial, especially in military contexts where commanders may not fully understand AI system limitations

Resolutions and action items

Continue supporting and participating in UN-sponsored platforms like UNIDIR’s RAISE and the RE-AIM process for responsible AI in military domains

Implement robust due diligence processes across the AI lifecycle from design through deployment and decommissioning

Develop clear standards ensuring AI systems used in security applications are transparent with accountability mechanisms

Provide training for military users to understand AI system capabilities, limitations, and failure modes

Integrate compliance requirements like International Humanitarian Law (IHL) into each stage of AI system development rather than treating it as a checkbox exercise

Support capacity-building initiatives particularly in regions where regulatory frameworks are still emerging

Unresolved issues

Funding sustainability for UN-sponsored AI governance platforms and multi-stakeholder initiatives

Technical feasibility of requiring algorithm openness due to intellectual property concerns

Power imbalance between big tech companies in developed countries and developing nations with limited influence over AI governance

Lack of meaningful and trustworthy use cases to understand how AI is actually being used in security domains

How to effectively implement AI signatures universally versus only for specific critical use cases

Addressing emergent misalignment and AI systems’ tendency to provide answers users want to hear rather than critical assessment

Ensuring compliance with humanitarian law in high-pressure battlefield situations where commanders seek quick AI-generated answers

Suggested compromises

Focus AI signature requirements on specific critical use cases rather than universal application across all AI-generated content

Balance innovation with security through integrated governance approaches rather than viewing them as zero-sum trade-offs

Combine technical and non-technical means for identifying machine-generated content rather than relying solely on one approach

Use procurement standards as leverage for governance compliance even when governments don’t own the AI systems or services

Develop counter-innovations and defensive measures alongside AI advancement to address emerging threats

AI is not only a force multiplier, but also a threat multiplier. It is not only about the risk of civilians. It’s also about increasing risk of your own combatants when you have a poorly designed, unverified AI system with uncertainties and you cannot be confident about it and there’s a whole black box.

Speaker

Jingjie He

Reason

This comment reframes the AI security discussion by highlighting that AI risks aren’t just external threats to civilians, but internal risks to military forces themselves. The ‘threat multiplier’ concept introduces a crucial dual perspective that challenges the common narrative of AI as purely advantageous in military contexts.

Impact

This shifted the conversation from viewing AI governance as primarily about protecting others to recognizing it as essential for protecting one’s own forces. It provided a strategic incentive framework that could motivate military adoption of responsible AI practices based on self-interest rather than just ethical obligations.

Governance is not something that can be added on after the fact. It’s not an afterthought. It needs to be something which is designed to fit in each stage of the life cycle… we have a series of things which is simply checked off as complete without sufficient evidence to the fact without the ability to understand is this system suitable for what it’s being used for.

Speaker

Alexi Drew

Reason

This fundamentally challenges the conventional approach to AI governance by arguing against treating it as a compliance checklist. It introduces the critical insight that governance must be embedded throughout the development process, not retrofitted, and warns against the dangerous illusion of safety through checkbox exercises.

Impact

This comment elevated the technical discussion to a more sophisticated understanding of systemic governance challenges. It influenced subsequent speakers to address implementation gaps and moved the conversation from ‘what should be done’ to ‘how governance actually fails in practice’ and why current approaches are insufficient.

Who is responsible for the mitigation of AI risks? Is it high tech big companies who are creating AI and developing AI? Because it is not in the hand of the government, especially in the developing countries right now… we can see how AI is being used in current ongoing wars. And the victims behind the use of AI technology in autonomous weapon, for example, how civilians are being killed without accountability.

Speaker

George Aden Maggett (Egyptian Supreme Court Judge)

Reason

This comment powerfully highlighted the global power imbalance in AI governance and connected abstract policy discussions to real-world consequences. Coming from a judicial perspective from the Global South, it brought urgent moral clarity about accountability gaps and the disconnect between those who develop AI and those who suffer its consequences.

Impact

This intervention fundamentally shifted the tone from technical optimization to urgent ethical accountability. It forced all subsequent speakers to address the responsibility question directly and grounded the abstract governance discussion in current conflict realities. It also highlighted the Global South perspective that had been somewhat absent from the technical discussions.

I bring concern about how AI is being used in a way that some of the commander or the user within the military domain is unaware of the possibility that AI might be corrupted during the use… And I also would like to bring the concern about the possibility of… AI being psychopath in a way that… would provide the answers that the users would like to seek. And being in the battlefield, that kind of tendency would be very, in a way, very risky and maybe dangerous.

Speaker

Commander Bagus Jatmiko (Indonesian Navy)

Reason

This comment introduced the critical concept of AI systems potentially being designed to tell users what they want to hear rather than what they need to know, especially dangerous in high-stakes military decisions. The ‘psychopath’ characterization, while provocative, highlighted how AI systems lack genuine critical thinking and may enable confirmation bias in life-or-death situations.

Impact

This shifted the discussion from technical reliability to psychological and cognitive risks in human-AI interaction. It introduced the concept of AI as potentially manipulative rather than just unreliable, adding a new dimension to the governance challenge that subsequent speakers had to address in their responses about training and system design.

You can in fact have security and innovation with adherence to values… innovation is being posed as a solution to our increasing state of insecurity and a risk to peace. And it’s been posited as a zero-sum game between innovation and security or insecurity and constraint on innovation. That is not the case.

Speaker

Alexi Drew

Reason

This comment directly challenged the false dichotomy often presented in AI policy discussions – that we must choose between innovation and safety/ethics. It reframed the entire governance challenge as a design problem rather than a trade-off, suggesting that responsible development is not inherently constraining but rather a different approach to innovation.

Impact

This provided a positive, solution-oriented conclusion that synthesized the various concerns raised throughout the discussion. It shifted the final tone from problem-focused to possibility-focused, suggesting that the governance challenges discussed were solvable through better design rather than fundamental limitations on AI development.

Overall assessment

These key comments transformed what could have been a technical policy discussion into a nuanced exploration of power, accountability, and practical implementation challenges. The progression moved from technical considerations (lifecycle management, signatures) to strategic reframing (threat multiplier concept), to urgent moral questions (Global South accountability concerns), to psychological risks (AI manipulation), and finally to a synthesis that rejected false trade-offs. The most impactful comments came from practitioners with direct experience (military officer, judge) who grounded abstract governance concepts in real-world consequences. This created a discussion that was both technically informed and ethically urgent, with each major intervention building complexity and shifting the conversation toward more fundamental questions about power, responsibility, and the human costs of AI deployment in security contexts.

How can we make multi-stakeholder AI governance platforms like RAISE more sustainable and address funding challenges?

Speaker

Jingjie He

Explanation

She noted that platforms like RAISE face funding issues and sustainability concerns, emphasizing this should be a collective effort requiring more resources and contributions from all stakeholders.

How can we better address adversarial attacks on AI systems used for peace and security monitoring?

Speaker

Jingjie He

Explanation

She mentioned that adversarial attacks pose challenges to AI systems used in satellite imagery analysis for conflict monitoring, making discussions more complex and requiring further research.

What specific technical standards and accountability mechanisms should be developed for AI systems in security applications?

Speaker

Michael Karimian

Explanation

He emphasized the need for clear standards ensuring transparency in AI capabilities and limitations, with robust documentation, monitoring, and auditing capabilities.

How can we develop more effective technical, ethical, and humanitarian governance that intersects with all stages of the AI lifecycle?

Speaker

Alexi Drew

Explanation

She stressed the need for governance mechanisms that work across development, validation, and deployment stages rather than being added as an afterthought.

How can AI-generated content be reliably identified and distinguished from human-generated content to prevent misinformation and violence?

Speaker

Francis Alaneme

Explanation

He raised concerns about AI-generated video content being used to spread false information and instigate violence, emphasizing the need for signature systems to identify AI-generated content.

How can we address emergent misalignment and the risk of AI systems becoming ‘psychopathic’ in military decision-making contexts?

Speaker

Commander Bagus Jatmiko

Explanation

He expressed concern about AI systems potentially being corrupted or misaligned during use in battlefield conditions, and the tendency of AI to provide answers users want to hear rather than accurate assessments.

Who should be held responsible for mitigating AI risks, particularly when big tech companies from powerful countries control the technology while developing countries bear the consequences?

Speaker

Judge George Aden Maggett

Explanation

He raised concerns about accountability for AI-related civilian casualties in current conflicts and the power imbalance between tech companies in developed countries and affected populations in developing countries.

Will there be a policy shift toward greater AI openness in peace and security domains, similar to civilian contexts?

Speaker

Rowan Wilkinson

Explanation

The question explores whether open-source approaches and community oversight models used in civilian AI safety could be applied to AI systems used for peace and security purposes.

How can we improve access to meaningful and trustworthy use cases to better understand how AI is actually being used in security domains?

Speaker

Michael Karimian

Explanation

He noted that the academic community, civil society, industry, and governments currently rely on limited examples that may not be reflective of actual AI use in security contexts.

How can procurement standards be used as a lever to ensure AI systems comply with international humanitarian law and ethical standards?

Speaker

Alexi Drew

Explanation

She suggested that even countries without direct control over AI development could use procurement conditions to enforce governance standards, requiring further exploration of implementation mechanisms.

Summary

This discussion at the Internet Governance Forum focused on the role of public service media in providing meaningful digital access, particularly in contexts where internet censorship and digital authoritarianism are growing concerns. The session was organized by the BBC and Deutsche Welle, with panelists including Patrick Leusch from Deutsche Welle, Abdallah Al Salmi from the BBC, Paula Gori from the European Digital Media Observatory, and Poncelet Ileleji from Joko Labs in Gambia.

The conversation began by distinguishing between basic internet connectivity and meaningful digital access, which encompasses reliable and affordable connectivity, appropriate devices, digital literacy, relevant local content, and safe digital environments. Leusch presented how international broadcasters face increasing censorship challenges, particularly in countries like Iran, Russia, and China, requiring sophisticated circumvention technologies to reach audiences seeking independent information during crises. Deutsche Welle and BBC invest heavily in tools like VPNs, proxy servers, and mirror sites to bypass censorship, with legal justification based on Article 19 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights regarding access to information.

Gori emphasized the connection between meaningful connectivity and disinformation, noting that public service media serve as crucial solutions to combat false information while maintaining transparency in ownership and funding. She highlighted how crisis situations demonstrate the vital role of trusted public media sources. Ileleji brought a grassroots perspective from Africa, advocating for strengthening community radio stations and local media partnerships to serve rural populations who lack broadband access but rely on radio for essential information about health, education, and agriculture.

The discussion revealed that current regulatory frameworks, including the EU’s Digital Services Act, face implementation challenges, particularly regarding data access for researchers studying platform algorithms. Participants agreed that a strengthened multi-stakeholder approach, updated international human rights frameworks, and better support for local media infrastructure are essential for achieving meaningful digital access globally.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Meaningful Digital Access vs. Basic Connectivity**: The distinction between simply having internet access and having meaningful digital access, which includes reliable/affordable connectivity, appropriate devices, digital literacy, relevant local content, and safe digital environments. This concept goes beyond just being connected to focus on the quality and utility of the internet experience.

– **Internet Censorship and Circumvention Technologies**: How authoritarian governments are increasingly blocking access to independent media content, and the technical and ethical challenges faced by public service broadcasters like BBC and Deutsche Welle in developing circumvention tools (VPNs, proxies, mirror servers) to reach audiences in countries like Iran, Russia, and China.

– **Community-Level Media Infrastructure**: The critical role of community radio stations, particularly in rural Africa, as intermediaries for delivering reliable information to populations with limited broadband access. The need to strengthen these local media outlets through partnerships with international broadcasters and digital literacy training.

– **Platform Transparency and Algorithmic Accountability**: The challenges researchers and media organizations face in understanding how social media algorithms work, the lack of data access despite regulations like the EU’s Digital Services Act, and how algorithmic preferences for emotional/sensational content can amplify disinformation.

– **Regulatory and Policy Framework Gaps**: The need to update international frameworks like Article 19 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights, strengthen multi-stakeholder governance models, and implement existing policies like the Global Digital Compact to better protect internet freedom and access to information.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to explore how public service media can enhance meaningful digital access globally, examining both the technical challenges of reaching audiences under authoritarian censorship and the broader policy frameworks needed to ensure equitable, safe, and useful internet access for all populations.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a professional, collaborative tone throughout, with participants sharing expertise and building on each other’s points constructively. While addressing serious challenges like censorship and disinformation, the speakers remained solution-oriented and emphasized the importance of multi-stakeholder cooperation. The tone was urgent but not alarmist, reflecting both the gravity of digital rights issues and optimism about potential solutions through coordinated action.

Speakers

– **Mr. Patrick Leusch** – Head of European Affairs at Deutsche Welle (Germany’s international broadcaster), Session Moderator

– **MODERATOR** – Online moderator (Oliver Ings, Distribution Manager at BBC)

– **Audience** – Various audience members and participants

– **Mr. Poncelet Ileleji** – CEO of Joko Labs in Banjul, Gambia; ICT expert with extensive experience in ICT development

– **Giacomo Mazzone** – Representative from Eurovision

– **Mr. Abdallah Alsalmi** – Policy Advisor at the BBC, Session Co-organizer

– **Ms. Paula Gori** – Secretary General and Coordinator of the European Digital Media Observatory (EDMO)

**Additional speakers:**

– **Thora** – PhD researcher from Iceland studying how very large platforms (VLOPS and VLOCE) are undermining democracy in the EEA

# Public Service Media and Meaningful Digital Access: IGF Session Report

## Executive Summary

This Internet Governance Forum session, organized by the BBC and Deutsche Welle, examined how public service media can provide meaningful digital access in an era of increasing internet censorship. Moderated by Patrick Leusch from Deutsche Welle, the discussion featured Mr. Abdallah Alsalmi from the BBC (participating remotely from London due to flight cancellations), Mr. Poncelet Ileleji from Joko Labs in Gambia, Ms. Paula Gori from the European Digital Media Observatory, Giacomo Mazzone from Eurovision, and Thora, a PhD researcher studying platform impacts on democracy.

The session explored the distinction between basic connectivity and meaningful digital access, examining technical circumvention strategies, community media infrastructure, and platform governance challenges. Participants revealed significant disagreements on content regulation approaches while finding common ground on the importance of multi-stakeholder governance and public service media’s crisis response role.

## Defining Meaningful Digital Access

Mr. Alsalmi opened by distinguishing meaningful digital access from simple connectivity: “We need to go beyond just simple connectivity and beyond just having a device that is connected to the internet because it’s all about the experience, it’s all about what the internet users can make of the internet.”

He clarified that while the UN’s Universal Meaningful Connectivity (UMC) provides specific development metrics, meaningful digital access focuses on the qualitative user experience and practical utility of internet services. This encompasses reliable connectivity, appropriate devices, digital literacy, relevant local content, and secure digital environments.

## Circumvention Technologies and Legal Framework

### Deutsche Welle’s Technical Approach

Patrick Leusch detailed Deutsche Welle’s substantial investment in circumvention technologies to reach audiences in countries like Iran, Russia, and China. The broadcaster employs VPN services, proxy servers, mirror websites, and tools like Psiphon and Tor. He highlighted their collaboration with Italian organization UNI to develop the News Media Scan tool.

Leusch provided specific examples of usage spikes during crises, including the Prigozhin coup attempt and Navalny’s death, demonstrating increased demand for alternative information sources during political upheavals. The technical work requires permanent adaptation as censorship methods vary significantly between countries and evolve continuously.

### Legal Justification and Challenges

Deutsche Welle’s legal team, consulting with the German Bundestag Legal Service, established justification for circumvention tools under Article 19 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights. However, Alsalmi argued for updating this framework: “Article 19 is really, I would say, is really outdated and we need to have another look at it, update it, and renew commitments to it… Any government can shut down the internet at any time without due recourse to legal background or text.”

## Community-Level Infrastructure Perspective

### African Connectivity Challenges

Mr. Ileleji provided grassroots perspective from sub-Saharan Africa, where approximately 37% of the population has broadband connectivity according to ITU statistics. He emphasized community radio’s continued importance: “I like to look at it from a grassroots level. What information do community radios are able to provide to their citizens?”

He described how community radio stations serve as intermediaries for rural populations, providing information about health, education, and agriculture while combating fake news spreading through WhatsApp. Ileleji noted that major tech companies like Meta and Google have launched connectivity projects in Africa using balloons and drones, but these often provide access to only limited websites.

### Partnership Approach

Rather than waiting for comprehensive broadband deployment, Ileleji advocated strengthening partnerships between international broadcasters and community radio stations, emphasizing digital literacy tools and training. This approach recognizes existing technological and economic constraints while building on established community media infrastructure.

## Platform Governance and Data Access

### Research Challenges

Ms. Gori highlighted obstacles in understanding platform operations despite regulations like the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA). She expressed particular concern about AI systems: “We even don’t know the answers that Gen AI is giving to people. So whenever you ask an AI chatbot about something, it is giving you an answer and no one knows it. It is like between you and the chatbot, which is creating an additional element, probably even more scary.”

The DSA’s data access provisions remain hindered by the unpublished Delegated Act, preventing researchers from accessing platform data necessary for studying algorithmic behavior and disinformation patterns. Gori worried about creating a “two-speed system” where only well-funded institutions can analyze platform data.

### Regulatory Approaches

Gori used a highway metaphor to explain connectivity and content regulation, advocating for risk-based regulation targeting platform operations rather than content itself. She noted increased reliance on trusted sources during COVID-19, highlighting public service media’s stabilizing role during information uncertainty.

## Content Regulation Debate

A significant disagreement emerged on content regulation approaches. Mr. Ileleji took a firm stance: “We shouldn’t have regulation on content. It goes against freedom of speech. So immediately you start trying to regulate content, then you are infringing on the rights of people.”

In contrast, Giacomo Mazzone suggested that fact-checking alone proves insufficient, questioning the effectiveness of industry pledges by organizations like the European Broadcasting Union and newspaper associations to platforms. This disagreement reflected broader tensions between combating disinformation and preserving freedom of expression.

## Multi-Stakeholder Governance

### Strengthening International Cooperation

Participants agreed on strengthening multi-stakeholder governance models. Alsalmi advocated for re-energizing local Internet Governance Forum (IGF) forums and coalition building to prevent internet fragmentation. Ileleji proposed combining Global Digital Compact implementation with World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) review to strengthen the IGF framework.

Gori emphasized involving municipalities as key players closer to citizens in digital rights advocacy. Alsalmi stressed the importance of civil society working at local levels and engaging judicial systems when governments don’t support digital rights initiatives.

### Research and Democracy Focus

Thora, referencing Time Magazine’s “Person of the Year 2006” recognition of internet users, focused her research on how Very Large Online Platforms (VLOPs) and Very Large Online Content Engines (VLOCEs) undermine democracy in the European Economic Area. Her work examines the intersection of platform governance and democratic processes.

## Key Outcomes and Ongoing Challenges

The session revealed both consensus and significant disagreements among participants. While there was agreement on the importance of multi-stakeholder governance, opposition to internet shutdowns, and public service media’s crisis response role, fundamental disagreements emerged on content regulation approaches.

Implementation challenges persist, including delayed DSA data access provisions, capacity gaps between large and small organizations, and the ongoing technical arms race between censorship and circumvention technologies. The discussion highlighted how different regional contexts require adapted strategies rather than universal solutions.

## Conclusion

This IGF session demonstrated the complexity of achieving meaningful digital access amid increasing digital authoritarianism. The combination of high-tech circumvention strategies from international broadcasters, community-level media strengthening in developing countries, and evolving regulatory frameworks in Europe suggests that meaningful digital access requires diverse, coordinated approaches.

The path forward involves both immediate practical actions—such as implementing existing data access provisions and strengthening community media partnerships—and longer-term framework development to update international human rights law for the digital age. Success will depend on navigating tensions between competing values while maintaining collaborative approaches to digital governance challenges.

Mr. Patrick Leusch: A very warm welcome everyone here in the room, in the workshop room two in Lilleström in Oslo at the IGF and remote wherever you sit around the globe. My name is Patrick Leusch, I’m head European affairs at Deutsche Welle, which is the Germany’s international broadcaster and I’m very happy to motivate this session here that has been organized, co-organized by the BBC and Deutsche Welle. So public service media and meaningful digital access, this workshop will deal with the lessons learned so far from policies followed by public service media to each audience via the internet and the challenges they face particularly in reaching global audiences. You might understand that for at least for Europe for public broadcasting internet censorship is a growing issue but not so important issue so far but potentially it is when you look at some some countries that start really limiting the access to information to put it that way but on a global scale there is a growing digital authoritarianism and this poses a challenge for information providers, for media makers, for human rights communities, we’re talking about safe space communication but we’re talking about journalism also brought to audiences to a less and less free extent. So what is the link to the concept of meaningful connectivity that will be explored in a minute and then we will step through different aspects of this challenge we are facing. We will explain a little bit practically how international broadcasters are running this problem and on the other hand at the second part let’s say what’s important is to understand what is the policy implications and is the regulatory implications and where this meaningful digital access needs to be strengthened from a policy and a regulatory and a legal framework and there is room to improve by far obviously and that is what we will discuss with the following protagonists and you because we consider you as an expert community, be you online or be you in the room so you will have space to discuss among yourselves and with us obviously. So the panelists so far are first of all I mentioned Abdallah Al Salmi, he’s policy advisor at the BBC and he was supposed to sit next to me because he’s the real organizer of that session but his flight was first delayed and then cancelled so no chance to come over from London. Hello Abdallah in London, very warm welcome. So I’m turning to the second speaker on screen, Paula Gori, who is the secretary general and the coordinator of the European Digital Media Observatory ADMO. Hello Paola, thank you very much for joining. Thank you. And last but not least with me is Poncelet Ileleji, he is the CEO of Joko Labs in Banjul, Gambia and he’s an outstanding ICT expert. When you look at his LinkedIn track down, he has been a member of a lot of boards and experts groups that deal particularly with ICT in development. Thank you very much for making the way, Poncelet. And last but not least, we have Oliver Ings, he is distribution manager at the BBC and he is the online moderator. I hope he’s there and we will get the questions from the audiences via Oliver. Now let’s simply start. Abdallah, give us an overview, what are we talking about when we talk about meaningful connectivity or meaningful digital access? Are you going to share your screen with your presentation by yourself or you want me to do that? So I’m sharing my screen now and I wanted

Mr. Abdallah Alsalmi: to ask if you could see it. Should come. So far we see you. So the IGF is telling me that they can’t see it. So I cannot see it on screen. Now we see it. Okay, perfect. All right, I’ll get started and thank you, Patrick, for the introduction and again I’m very happy to be here. So I’m going to start with the thank you, Patrick, for the introduction and again apologies for not being able to be physically in workshop room two. I’m going to arrive later tonight so hopefully we will meet some of you over the week. So to begin to talk about meaningful digital access, it’s really a good start to think of how technology and communications evangelists tended to lump some old internet users in one group. So for example, someone who can send only text messages on WhatsApp over a 2G connection is put or placed in the same group with someone who has a super fast broadband and can use Apple’s latest VR headset to play games. So over the last few years, some civil society groups such as the Alliance for Affordable Internet came up with this concept of meaningful digital access and the idea behind it was that we need to go beyond just simple connectivity and beyond just having a device that is connected to the internet because it’s all about the experience, it’s all about what the internet users can make of the internet. And the meaningful digital access has a number of elements. The definition is not really set in stone so it’s a bit flexible at the moment but the first one is about reliability and affordability of the connectivity. Again, here we’re talking about the costs of data that vary largely between one country and another. Probably it’s getting cheaper but still in some geographic contexts it’s a prohibitive aspect of using the internet. The second element is the appropriate devices and the idea here is about how many devices does a person have and do they have a keyboard in their device or not when they are using the internet. So the more devices they have, the better specifications of the devices, their internet experience is going to improve. And number three which touches on the issue of the digital divide and issues of development which is very important is digital literacy and skills and again the UN and a large number of other organizations have been working on this and it’s a huge subject. It also touches upon one of the points that some of our panelists will speak about today which is disinformation. To what extent is the user able to enjoy their internet experience without being subjected to organized disinformation campaign either by governments, by companies or even by individuals. Fourth is the relevant content in local languages and again here I think we have made huge strides in this but again more work needs to be done in making online content available in languages where people find it easy to speak and to use the internet. And last but not least number five is the safe and inclusive digital environments and this is here we get into the area of cyber security, we get into the area of access and continuity of internet access. Is there an internet shutdown? Is there censorship and blocking? And all of these elements come under as one of the requirements for a meaningful digital access. Now the UN has their own standard which is called universal meaningful connectivity and largely it’s very similar to meaningful digital access but there are differences. So a universal meaningful connectivity or in short UMC is more of a development goal that some UN organizations such as the ITU, the International Telecommunications Union works on in cooperation with governments, in cooperation with civil society and the idea is to upgrade the experience of online access based on specific metrics that have to do with how many people are connected to the internet and to what extent they are able to use data on a day-to-day basis, and what purposes they use the internet for, is it for business, is it for social networking or for looking for a job. The aim of the universal meaningful connectivity is the same as the meaningful digital access in the sense that If people don’t have access to a good connection, they can’t look for a job, they can’t keep in touch with their family, they can’t express their opinions freely on the Internet. However, the only difference here is that the MDI is an outcome. It really relates to the experience and the quality of it, of using the Internet, while UMC is a goal in itself and policy. And so the UMC as a metric, there’s a lot of data that’s available already. If you go to the ITU data hub online, you will find really a good dashboard that shows you the scores of all the countries in the world which are members of the ITU and where you can really see where more work needs to be done. For example, some of these scores, if it’s up to 100, if it’s 40 to 50, the UMC metric is limited. If it goes all the way up to 95 and 200, then it means that the target has been achieved. And yeah, so the last slide is about really this session, and we’re trying to look here at how public service media work to enhance and respond to these various challenges in attaining the status of meaningful digital access. So I’m going to stop here and get back to you, Patrick.

Mr. Patrick Leusch: Thank you very much, Abdallah, for that first introduction to camp a little bit this scene. I think it’s very important to distinguish between an outcome and an objective. And I think we will come back to both of it, because we would like to look at it from a comprehensive point of view. You have mentioned different use cases which play with meaningful digital access, let’s say in the exchange between people looking for a job, for instance, inform themselves. From another perspective, it’s also from the sender side. You can say that there is one issue which is really a bigger issue, is the access to information on a global scale, which is limiting more and more. And I would like to jump in and show you now a little bit what does that mean to public service media like the BBC, us and others, and if Laura could launch my presentation, that would be great. So thank you very much. So as I said, we are an international broadcast. I think you know roughly what we do. The map of press freedom that you see here is the guiding line for what we do. We provide unbiased information for free minds, and in a similar logic BBC and the former USAGM, at least with some of their grantees, have been underway to provide independent information, reliable information, where there is limitations to that, particularly from local media or state media or whatever. So as BBC and others, we provide this information in these local languages and made by teams from these countries. So we are not reporting about Germany to Gambia or Senegal. We are informing people in Russia about what’s happening in Russia and in Ukraine, right? And obviously, there is interest on the global scale. We reach 320 million users a week. And when you look at the geographical dispatching, then you see also that most of them are reached on continents where there is a, let’s say, limited space of information, be it by technical means, be it by market means, or be it by digital order. We will have a closer look at Eastern Europe and Central Asia, because there is where the game plays at the moment when you look at censorship. Independent content that would otherwise be denied through censorship, disinformation and one-sided reporting, that’s what our final impact should be. Now, on one hand, we are all journalists. We are used to create great journalistic content. But what are we telling taxpayers when they pay for this great content, when we cannot get it through to the audiences? So since many years, we and others invest also in censorship, understanding and teaching people circumventing censorship, because otherwise they cannot access these contents. And by the way, this research on circumvention, for instance, is nothing we do exclusively for our own company. We share with the BBC and others, for instance, and that relates also to a lot of exile media or media that are outside of the country where they report for. You can mention Medusa, for Russia and others, for instance. So that’s not only a matter for public service media like us, it’s a matter for a lot of free and independent media. The Deutsche Welle is blocked in China, in Iran, in Egypt, in Belarus, in Russia, in Turkey to some extent. And since 2012, we started looking into circumvention technologies. And as for Iran, we are very successful together with partners, obviously. And you understand that since a couple of days, there’s a complete shutdown in Iran and there are expert groups working on this issue. And Iran is a good example where over a long period of time, you really can build a skilled community that is able to access these contents via a range of tools, while the censorship is very efficient. Iranian censorship is quite efficient, let’s say. Maybe not so efficient with the Chinese one, but that’s a matter of how the Internet has been constructed. The Chinese Internet has been built as an inner Internet from the beginning, and the Iranian Internet was an open one, let’s say, but in a developing phase with limited connections to the outside global Internet at a certain point of time, where it was easier to cut it or control it. When you look at the Russian Internet, for instance, that is a different story because this was a fully-fledged, connected, globally interconnected Internet, which is now censored step by step on a testing basis also, because the Russians cannot know exactly what else works still when they cut something on another hand and they want to avoid. So it’s a kind of testing, but they are moving forward step by step, and even speed up the process to deconnect everything. So in Iran, we touch millions of people on a weekly basis, and it’s not only digital natives that can use these technologies needed to access these contents. So Internet censorship, that’s something you have to understand, is a complex issue. It’s technically and politically a complex issue. It relates on a variety of technologies, policies, means and methods, and it’s a permanent cat and mouse to understand what precisely is the technology used to censor content, filter content, block content, or throttle content, or whatever, and then the mitigation measure is also adapted to this variety of methods. These methods vary from country to country, and they vary from, let’s say, censorship policy to censorship policy. You cannot remove digital censorship from the outside of the technical center, so to say, and you cannot dig holes in the censorship wall. You can try to get around the wall. That’s something that’s very important to understand. So we are not counter-hacking or counter-attacking, but we try to provide tunnels, funnels, or whatever to make people access to Internet they are kept away from. The second condition is people in this country want access to that content. It’s their decision at the end of the day. We provide the content. We provide an explanation how to access it, but it’s their decision at the end of the day. I can tell you that that poses ethical questions on those doing this kind of stuff on one hand, and it’s also legal questions. Why a public service media like Deutsche Welle or BBC is able in front of a financial court also, and according to the law that identifies the mandate of a public broadcaster like with us, what is the legal basis on which… which we can provide explainers to audiences that explains how to access VPNs or apps that has been co-developed with IT specialists from our specialists that gives them access to that content. What is the legal basis on that? We did a research on that and we asked the German Bundestag Legal Service, Scientific Service to give an answer and the answer was it is Article 19, the access of information, Article 19 UN Carta on Human Rights. That is the legal basis and all the countries we are talking about that are censoring contents from us and others have signed this Carta and international law is breaking national law. So from a legal perspective, this is safe play. Simply on this article. So let’s start a discussion. What else? Just to speed up a little bit, we provide internet freedom via our app, Psyphone Tour. The session before here was from our friends with Tour. We work with them obviously. They host also our contents on their tour servers. When you access tour, you see our content for instance which is very important. We work with proxies, mirror servers and a lot of other means to get people access to our content. So we are quite skilled in reading what needs to be done to get people access to these contents because we do that work since 12 or 13 years. Nevertheless, it is always a kind of challenge because it is costly. You need server space for mirror server, for mirroring content for instance and you pay to Amazon or whoever for the server space. That’s really costly. But that circumvention works. Can you see from the access? This is a chart from the protests in Iran two years ago and you see clearly where the peaks are. That’s clearly every time when there was shut down, when there was protests, when there was limitations on the internet, people start seeking for information. You can see also this chart from Russia. You see that there is a peak around a weekend in June. What happened at that weekend in June? It was the coup by Prigozhin. Then there is crisis in the countries. It was the same when you look at the day that Navalny died. You see the same peak. When there is crisis, people in these countries start seeking for let’s say alternative information and that’s why public service media and exalt media are so important for these audiences. Okay, thank you very much. By the way, this is a small tool we co-developed with an Italian organisation, UNI. It’s called News Media Scan and if you install it, it shows you which websites in a given country are currently blocked, effectively blocked and which ones are free accessible. Nice monitoring tool that gives you a glimpse on what’s going on in your country. So this is to give you an overview over what we do and how that relates to the very practically to the concept of meaningful digital access. Great. I would like to hand over to Paula now to give us a glimpse on policy aspects. Hi, Paula. Yes,

Ms. Paula Gori: we can hear you. Go ahead, please. Thank you very much for having me and thank you for your great presentation. I noticed some keywords which I will try to take also in my presentation. So for those who do not know, ETMO stands for European Digital Media Observatory and we deal with disinformation and we are one of the pillars of the EU actually to tackle disinformation. But really in a nutshell, you can see us as a multi-stakeholder and multidisciplinary platform that tries to understand disinformation. Now Paula is frozen. Can you hear me? Can you see me? Yes, you are back. Okay, very good. Just very quickly, I wanted to reflect a little on the link between UMC and disinformation because first a step back, I mean Abdalla presented it very well and I was thinking of a metaphor and it’s like when you build connectivity, it’s like when you build the infrastructure which means think of for example the highway. Now we are all happy that we have a highway but if without rules it wouldn’t be so useful because actually there would be a risk of having accident or I don’t know, people walking on the highway and then having actually death accidents and so on. So there are a few rules. We are all free on the highway but there are still a few rules and this is somehow the same that happens with connectivity and content in the sense there is an infrastructure but we need not so many but at least a few rules and at least principles which are globally shared otherwise it’s hard to manage. And so this is somehow if you want my starting point. Now when it comes to disinformation and we discussed that in a prior session, I mean the whole issue is quite complex and also the solution is complex and it’s a multi-solution if you want with a full respect of fundamental rights and freedom of expression but now linking it to public service media which is if you want the core here in this session, I think there are a few reflections to be made. The first is that public service media is often seen as one of the solutions to tackle disinformation and I think this is rightly so and indeed at least in the EU there is the policy of the EU is to invest a lot and to support quality independent quality journalism and to support infrastructure for this journalism to actually be accessible. We also have to be honest, on some occasions unfortunately public service media are also sharing disinformation. We should be blind on that. There were a few occasions in some countries in which this is happening or happened and is happening but I think that once we are honest on that I think we can clearly invest also on the solution side where public service media play a key role and as you rightly said I think that crisis situations are in those moments in which we really have the evidence that they are playing a key role. I think when we saw it all during the COVID crisis we were accessing public service media more than before because we were all looking for information, we were all lost. We were also accessing quite a lot of disinformation and online content but public service media were in the end the media that everybody was relying on actually to get safe information. Now for public service media to work I think that or to be reliable I think what is very important is transparency. You may be familiar with what we have in the EU which is the European Media Freedom Act among others and according to the European Media Freedom Act there should be transparency on the ownership, on the structure, on the funding of the PSM. Why am I saying that? Because as you rightly said the choice is on the users, is on the citizens and so while public service media are not imposing them, they are just being there as an alternative or as one of the alternatives. It is important for the citizens to be sure about who is behind, how they are funded, how they are working because I think this is an element that gives reliability and that helps the users trust. Then of course as we were saying citizens can access any information they want and any source they want and this stays. I just wanted to maybe also close because I know that we are a little late in this session but I wanted to say something which is I think very important. I think there was an unfortunate, how can I say, coincidence between if you want an issue in the business model of traditional media including the PSM and in parallel as we all know a shift from advertisers from offline to online but also if you want in the way that public service media produced and shared the news. I talked to many journalists of PSM and there is a sort of mea culpa in the sense that it is important to have a more innovative but also positive approach to to sell news because otherwise there is a risk that the users and the citizens actually are not interested in quality news which is honestly a pity. So this is something where I see for example BBC and Deutsche Welle are actually quite good examples of very positive examples because they invest a lot on if you want new ways of producing content and of sharing content and also try to be less sensational. We have a lot of people who are journalists in their content and in their headlines and so on. But somehow it is important that PSM play a role also in not only being trustworthy because of the structure but also in being attractive because of their content. And I will close it here. And I just wanted to thank you really for the work that you are doing because it needs some courage to do what you are doing. And this is really in the interest of citizens.

Mr. Patrick Leusch: Thank you very much, Paula. Very interesting points. I think we will come back to one or two, particularly the building blocks you mentioned on this trustworthiness, which is extremely important when you look at content shared via the variety of distribution forms you don’t own. I’m saying the platforms, for instance, and particularly the user habits, which play an incredible role in all that. Let’s come back to that later. But first of all, I made you wait here on the screen. Poncelet, go ahead. What do you think?

Mr. Poncelet Ileleji: I think personally, good morning, everybody. When we look at public service media and meaningful digital access, I like to look at it from a grassroots level. What information do community radios are able to provide to their citizens? In most of the cases, you look at sub-Saharan Africa, for example, my beloved continent, where only about 37% of the population have broadband connectivity. In most cases, if I take the Gambia, my home, whereby you have people who live in rural areas, they have Internet connection, but they don’t have meaningful connectivity. Because sometimes most of the big telcos, what do they do? They put their towers in most of the big cities, municipal cities. So people in the villages and in rural areas in most parts of Africa, they get their information from all these community radio stations. Some of these community radio stations, they also link up with the BBC or Dutch Orwella to produce information. So the most important thing is that with public media access, we have to strengthen our community radio stations. We have to give them more digital literacy tools and link them up to community network centers, whereby they can be able to download information relevant from big media houses to disseminate to their population. I’m looking at it from a grassroots perspective. We have to know that what does the average common man want in a rural area? He wants to get information on education, health, agriculture. Those are the basic information he needs to live his life and contribute to the well-being. Now, in terms of what Paolo talked about and when you look at disinformation, yes, if you don’t equip community-based public media with the right tools to be able to provide good news and updated news that is not disinformed, what have a lot of people now doing? They get their information, fake news spreads through mainly messaging apps like WhatsApp. So someone just sends a message and it goes viral and it’s fake. But who debunks all this information? Is the community radio saying, oh, that is not true, that X and Y activist has been arrested, blah, blah, blah. It’s not true. This happened and everything. So the strength for meaningful connectivity on information is strengthening our community-based radio stations, and that can be made possible through what I would call big public media like BBC, like Deutsche Welle, who work around different parts of the world. So they have to have partnerships so that with local community radio stations, give them digital literacy tools for this to be achieved. I’ll lastly say that if you look at the global digital compact implementation, one of the key things there is the digital divide. We still have 2.6 billion people in the world that are not connected. And if you want people to be connected, once you equip them with the right information through public media, indirectly they’ll be connected.

Mr. Patrick Leusch: Thank you. Thank you very much, Poncelet. That is a very important point. Just to put a question to understand correctly, what you’re referring to is the, let’s say, the technical infrastructure first, getting more people, more speedy, technically access to information via a policy to provide, let’s say, high-speed Internet. In rural areas, particularly in Africa, do I understand correctly that you are pledging for a speed-up infrastructural approach also to provide this right?

Mr. Poncelet Ileleji: Yes, in a way, yes. But we have to live with the reality on the ground. The reality on the ground is that we are still a long way for achieving meaningful connectivity on broadband in most parts of Africa. That is the reality. But how do you do it is by developing the capacities of community radio stations so that they have that capacity. They have, I mean, linking it up with a community network center. They have Internet connectivity to get good information to disseminate to that community. So when you do that, the information that the average person in a rural setting might not be able to get because he doesn’t have meaningful connectivity through his local radio station, he will be able to get this information because they are equipped. So that’s why I’m linking up that the meaningful access I’m talking about, I’m linking it up with public media. And that public media I’m referencing is what is at the community level. And that’s the community-based radio stations who, again, for world news, for other things, can link up to BBC, Deutsche Welle. You have all these learning platforms. They can link up to these learning platforms to provide other services in education, health, agriculture that people need to have.

Mr. Patrick Leusch: Exactly. That’s absolutely right. And that’s what’s happening, by the way, because we, for instance, we work with partners. We can pick content and distribute that content on our own platforms. We co-develop content. And, by the way, like BBC with the media action, we provide trainings. And that training relates also on shifting, making shifting local media into online reporting and everything that comes with it. So let me turn to you guys here in the room. And let me also ask our online moderator, Oliver Inks, if there is a question that has been put forward so far from those who are connected online.

MODERATOR: Good day to everybody. Thank you. I can’t see any questions in the Zoom chat at the moment, but I do see that Paula has her hand up. So perhaps we should give the floor to her.

Mr. Patrick Leusch: Go ahead, Paula. Only at the condition that there are no more questions, of course, from the audience. I just wanted to kind of go back to what Ponce was saying, because I think it’s very important. And I think there is another two elements. One is we don’t know. I mean, we are not fact checking or we don’t know what is going through private messaging app, which is absolutely correct. I will add another layer, which is we even don’t know the answers that Gen AI is giving to people. So whenever you ask an AI chatbot about something, it is giving you an answer and no one knows it. It is like between you and the chatbot, which is creating an additional element, probably even more scary. And the second element is, and I wanted, I mean, but you, Ponce, are more familiar with the African continent. But I remember some years ago, Meta and Google were sending balloons and drones to provide connectivity in some African regions. And among the condition was the fact that you could only access a limited number of websites, including, of course, Facebook. Then if this is the case, and then if there is lots of disinformation, but also hate speech and so on, on those platforms, then somehow the users, they are locked in, the citizens, because they have the connectivity, but it is by no means meaningful nor safe because you are accessing content, which is disinformation or even worse, illegal speech. So I think this is quite important. And just very quickly, again, on the messaging, I think it is very linked to the urban and rural areas and also to the fact that as human beings, we trust our families, we trust our friends. So it is somehow replicating the word of mouth situation that we also had in the past, but as you rightly say, in a way more scary way because there is still this convincing element that if it comes from the online, it is trustworthy. Thank you very much. We have a question in the room here. Sir, go ahead.

Giacomo Mazzone: Yeah, it’s working. Giacomo Mazzone from Eurovision. I have a question in general to all the speakers that is about the… It seems to us that… The fact-checking is not enough. We need to go towards a more comprehensive approach, more holistic approach. That means having regulation that will help in the negotiation with the platforms in order to be more effective in the work that you do. I know that recently there has been a pledge launched by EBU and the association of other newspapers to the platforms. Can you tell more about that, if you are aware?

Mr. Poncelet Ileleji: If I were to comment, I would first want to talk about when you mentioned regulation. We shouldn’t have regulation on content. It goes against freedom of speech. So immediately you start trying to regulate content, then you are infringing on the rights of people. Yes, there is a moral issue on what kind of content you produce, and we have to be able to fact-check information, and that is why a lot of countries, a lot of organizations are just fact-checking information. And the last thing I will say, it’s also the moral duty for people, like where you see most messages, whether it’s on TikTok or on a WhatsApp messaging app, and you get an information, you just post it to send it to other people without even fact-checking it, and you are supposed to be the educated one. In most cases, most of the people that carry all this hate speech or disinformation are the educated folks, and so we have to do a lot of stuff whereby so-called educated folks are now using all these platforms to misguide the majority of the populace, and we have to work hard in changing that. But to bring about regulation of content is a no-go for me. Thank you.

Mr. Patrick Leusch: Okay, very strong commitment. Thank you very much. Paula, I have this question from Giacomo in mind that relates to the role of the platforms. I can say from my experience, for public broadcasters, and I think you know that very well, Giacomo, because that’s true for public broadcasters as well, or for most of the media, but a little bit different for commercial media than for the public media, I guess, is to play the platforms. I mean, you can’t read the platforms. We don’t know what the platforms are doing with our content. You don’t know what is in the black box. We have expert teams sitting that check what goes from our newsrooms in the black box, and they can check what comes out of the black boxes in terms of audience, and then they guess what the algorithm is doing why with your content, and then they advise on the newsrooms to adapt the content according to their guessing without knowing really what the platform is doing with your content. And obviously, many journalists and content producers are tilting between, we have to get rid of the platforms and how we can play them best, and that is very difficult to play. But from your perspective, because Edmo is really at the heart of assessing also what that means, what is your assessment on that from a regulatory point of view? And I know that we are tilting back a little bit to the European context that will widen up again for the global context in a minute. Paula. Yes, you got a little

Ms. Paula Gori: frozen, but I hope I got the question. So first I wanted just to reinforce what was said. We all get always freezing when we talk about the platforms, you know, that’s normal. No, I just wanted to say that I first wanted to reinforce what was said. Regulations should not be on the content, and this is very important, and this is also, for example, the approach of the Digital Services Act. It’s not on the content, it is on the risks that the way the platform work actually can pose. So this is very important. Now, on what you were saying on content that is on platforms, I think this is the overall point that we are making since years, that there is no transparency in the algorithmic decisions. So we are really not fully aware why we are seeing a given piece of news rather than the other. And let me also say that I’m probably even the platform still don’t know, because as far as I know, it’s an algorithm that works on an algorithm that works on another algorithm. So they somehow tweak it so much that, honestly, I fear that in some occasions they even lost control on these whole tweaks on the algorithms. But clearly what we know is that emotions fuel negative content, and especially negative emotions. So whenever a content is emotionally strong, it is based on fear, on division, on threat, and so on, it becomes more viral. And this is a way to tweak the algorithm. And this, in my opinion, is why unfortunately some media then move to sensationalism content, because it actually moves the algorithm more than a plain information that is without emotions and is not emotionally emotional. But going back to the regulation that we are seeing, I think that we are going, and I was saying that in the previous session, with the global principles that we are seeing, with the Global Digital Compact, with the UNESCO guidelines, and so on, I think we are agreeing on basic principles. And in the EU especially, as I was saying earlier, what we are doing is we are looking at if the way the platform works can actually be mis-abused. Let’s put it in a very simple way. So it’s not about the content. It’s just the way you are working can be mis-abused by malign actors. And this creates risks to public security, public health, civic discourse, and so on. And that’s where the regulation is, because as it was said, we could not get into the content. Thank you very much, Paula, so far.

Audience: So there’s a lady standing since minutes on the microphone. I didn’t want to interrupt. Good answers. Very kind of you. Thank you. The floor is yours. My name is Thora. I’m a PhD researcher coming out of Iceland. I’m studying how VLOPS and VLOCE, very large platforms, are undermining democracy in the EEA. And my problem is, of course, scarcity of data and the black box. Now, I have a 20-year experience working in IT and building large systems. So in my mind, I see it. I see the black box. But as an academic, now the DSA is supposed to give me access, but it is not. The platforms are dragging their feet. And I, again, am asking here and sort of lobbying on behalf of academia, are you guys doing any academic work and demanding data through the DSA? If not, what is hindering it? And what can we do to fix this problem so we don’t always are theorizing with the law? Then comes the black box and we are studying the outcome, because that’s, of course,

Mr. Patrick Leusch: a futile thing. Thank you. Thora, thank you very much. That’s really the right question at that moment, because I was just about to try to link the different aspects that we have had now, right? So the access to this data is one regulatory thing, and the DSA is at the heart of it. And we understand that the EU is slow in, you know, pushing that forward. Maybe there is an overarching political item in it, tax or something like that, I don’t know exactly. But the question is the following, and this question goes to Poncelet and goes also to Paula, but also to you guys here in the room and online. So we have touched based on the censorship issue at the beginning, which is it’s a part of meaningful access to digital access, right? Then Poncelet has spoken about the challenges that you see in Africa, for instance, which lay partly on another level. I’m not saying there’s no censorship, there is, but meaningful access means much more and leads to skills of media, but also to technical development. The access to data on the large platforms and the regulatory questions that come with it is another aspect. So I have at least three different elements which are not easy to link together when we asked what needs to be done policy-wise or on a regulatory basis to push these challenges forward. So what do you think where to attack? You mentioned, Paula, the AMFA, for instance, and the DSA has been mentioned. So what I’m saying, there are things in place, why aren’t they working and what needs to be done to make them better work, right? UNESCO initiative, the Global Compact, all this has been mentioned. So tell us where to work on to make them better perform all these elements that are in place.

Mr. Abdallah Alsalmi: I would like to look at the issue of the international human rights aspect of access. Article 19 is really, I would say, is really outdated and we need to have another look at it, update it, and renew commitments to it. The other issue is that the multi-stakeholder model, since we are at the IGF, it’s good to mention it. We have been, for a number of years, we have been hearing a lot about support for the multi-stakeholder model of governing the internet. Oftentimes it comes as a response by some civil society groups and some governments to the efforts by particular governments to try and reshape the internet as we know it. We really need to energize efforts working towards a real multi-stakeholder model. My idea is that we can start with the local branch of your IGF by trying to build coalition, talk to your government, and try to push for an internet that is really open and in a way regulated to protect its current openness and the fact that it has no borders. We really cannot continue to work on this legal loophole. I’m going to make this comparison now. If you look at shortwave radio and satellite TV, they are protected by rules of the International Communications Union, so governments cannot jam them. Governments cannot disrupt these broadcasting technologies. But the internet now, it’s not protected. Any government can shut down the internet at any time without due recourse to legal background or text. Any government can block websites, again, at will, with no questions and no justification provided. So, my call to action is about re-energizing the local IGF forums and to start from that point.

Mr. Patrick Leusch: Thank you very much. If I may just follow up on data access. A tepid statement, particularly saying Article 19 is outdated. So, over to Paola.

Ms. Paula Gori: On data access, quickly, or I would love to have more time. So, first of all, you are completely right. The current policy framework establishes actually the obligation that the platforms give access to researchers, to independent researchers, both access to public and to private data. What is still missing is the Delegated Act. So, the Commission should publish the Delegated Act, which makes this operational, and then there should be no excuses. So, we really hope that this will be active. What Aetmo did already years ago, we did a legal analysis on whether having access to private data would infringe GDPR. And you can find on our website a good report saying that actually it is fine to get access to those data. We are also covered on that side, and we actually even worked on an independent intermediary body that could work in between digital services coordinators, so kind of with the digital services coordinators in between researchers and platforms. So, this is, I fully agree with you. Just one thing I wanted to say is that once we will get access to those data, there will be two main issues. The first is, will all organizations be equipped financially and infrastructurally to deal with all this data? Because there is a risk of two-speed academic institutions and civil society organizations. The big and rich ones, they will make it. The smaller ones not, which is an issue also if you look at some specific countries, not only in Europe, but now the DSA is for Europe, so think of, for example, the Eastern countries and so on. But also countries like Italy, I’m not sure if many universities would be able to do that. The second, policymakers shall be ready, because if we really access those data, we will understand so many things about this information, and also about the impact, that probably we will have to change the whole policy framework once we will have the knowledge of what is happening really online, because it’s only through those data that we will have those knowledge. So, just those two points to quickly close. Thank you very much, Paula.

Mr. Poncelet Ileleji: Oh, yeah. If I look at it, I totally agree with what Paula said and Abdullah. I will say the multistakeholder process is the key to all we are discussing here, especially you look at data governance, like the PhD researcher talked, data governance has now become a key component in all the work we do. But this multistakeholder process involves us being able to dialogue with our governments, with civil society, with academia, with legal people, with technical people, so we have to sit with equity and hear each other out and agree to disagree. If we don’t do that, starting at a grassroots level, we will continue to be dividing ourselves, and trying to, instead of building an Internet that is not fragmented, we will continue to have fragmentations at various levels, and that is why disinformation now is now a big thing. If you go back to 2006, Time Person of the Year in 2006 was you. That you, when Times Magazine made the you, us, as Person of the Year, still applies today, and we have to know how to, the information we give out, we have to know that it is correct and it is impactful to our society, and that is the key of this session we have had today. And it also links up with meaningful connectivity. We should never forget that the majority of the people that want to impact lives, they don’t have connectivity. Look at it, 2.6 billion people, according to the statistics from the ITU. So let us go back to the basics and try to use our public media, especially those at the grassroots level, equip them well to build the world we want, that we get better information for socio-economic development. Thank you.

Mr. Patrick Leusch: Thank you very much for that strong pledge, Ponceled. Last question from my side, two minutes left, very short one. What is the biggest block we have to move away to go that path, to strengthen the multi-stakeholder approach, to look deeper into the challenges that are in the digital divide area, and to come up with a better version of, I put it very simple, with a better version of Article 19. What is the biggest block you have to move away to go that path?

Mr. Poncelet Ileleji: If I start, I have one simple equation. The global digital compact implementation plus WSIS recrafted, we are coming to 20 years of the WSIS, the World Summit on Information Society, is the WSIS that led to the IGF. If we have this global GDC implementation plus the WSIS recrafted, in my mind in July, it equates to a stronger and strengthened IGF that will improve lives.

Mr. Patrick Leusch: Thank you very much. Very precise. Abdallah?

Mr. Abdallah Alsalmi: I mean, I agree with Poncelet here about the importance of the huge pledges made within the global digital compact, as well as the upcoming review of WSIS. My main concern here is that we rely too much on governments, and as we can see in democracies, you might end up with a government that doesn’t like what you’re doing, and as such they either oppose what you’re doing, or they don’t help you. I look at the example of the recent ruling by the Supreme Court in India, which made a landmark verdict regarding the access to digital life as part of the individual’s own right to life. I think the civil society could start really by working at the local level, and if, with the governments, if the government doesn’t lend an ear to them, then they can always work towards the judiciary sector, and find some supporters in other aspects of their societies.

Mr. Patrick Leusch: Thank you very much, Abdallah. Nine seconds for you, Paula.

Ms. Paula Gori: Okay, so I fully endorse what was said. I would just say, change the narrative, change the way we put this whole conversation, let it make attractive also for those who don’t believe in democracy, and on the other side, involve municipalities. I think they could play a key role here. They are way more close to citizens, and they could be very active in this field.

Mr. Patrick Leusch: Thank you. Thank you very much. I would like to thank my panellists, Poncelet here on stage, Paula and Abdallah remotely. Thank you very much for your insights, for that great discussion. Thank you all, the audience here, for your questions and comments, and for participating online to this session on meaningful digital access and what role for PSM public service media in it. And thanks to Flora and her team for this great framing here, organising the technical means for this session. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you.

Agreement points

Multi-stakeholder governance model is essential for internet governance and addressing digital challenges

Speakers

– Mr. Abdallah Alsalmi
– Mr. Poncelet Ileleji

Arguments

Multi-stakeholder governance model needs energizing through local IGF forums and coalition building to prevent internet fragmentation

Global Digital Compact implementation combined with WSIS review could strengthen IGF and improve lives globally

Summary

Both speakers strongly advocate for strengthening multi-stakeholder approaches to internet governance, with Alsalmi emphasizing local IGF forums and coalition building, while Ileleji proposes combining Global Digital Compact implementation with WSIS review to strengthen the IGF framework.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights | Infrastructure

Content regulation should be avoided in favor of other approaches to address disinformation

Speakers

– Ms. Paula Gori
– Mr. Poncelet Ileleji

Arguments

Regulation should target risks posed by platform operations rather than content itself, as demonstrated by the EU’s Digital Services Act approach

Content regulation should be avoided as it infringes on freedom of speech; focus should be on fact-checking and moral responsibility of users

Summary

Both speakers reject direct content regulation as a solution, with Gori advocating for risk-based regulation of platform operations and Ileleji emphasizing that content regulation violates freedom of speech principles.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights

Public service media plays a crucial role during crisis situations

Speakers

– Ms. Paula Gori
– Mr. Patrick Leusch

Arguments

Public service media serves as a solution to tackle disinformation, particularly during crisis situations like COVID-19 when people seek reliable information sources

Crisis situations drive increased demand for alternative information sources, as evidenced by usage spikes during protests and political upheavals

Summary

Both speakers recognize that public service media becomes particularly important during crises, with Gori noting increased reliance during COVID-19 and Leusch providing evidence of usage spikes during political upheavals and protests.

Topics

Human rights | Sociocultural | Infrastructure

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers reference Article 19 of international human rights law as fundamental to internet access rights, though Alsalmi argues it needs updating while Leusch uses it as current legal justification for circumvention work.

Speakers

– Mr. Abdallah Alsalmi
– Mr. Patrick Leusch

Arguments

Article 19 of international human rights law is outdated and needs renewal, with stronger commitments to protect internet openness unlike current legal loopholes

Circumvention work is legally justified under Article 19 of the UN Human Rights Charter regarding access to information, which supersedes national censorship laws

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Both speakers recognize the challenge of misinformation spread through digital platforms and the need for trusted sources to counter it, though they focus on different solutions – Gori on algorithmic transparency and Ileleji on community radio fact-checking.

Speakers

– Ms. Paula Gori
– Mr. Poncelet Ileleji

Arguments

Lack of algorithmic transparency prevents understanding of why certain content is promoted, with platforms potentially losing control over their own complex algorithmic systems

Community radio stations play a crucial role in debunking fake news that spreads through messaging apps like WhatsApp in rural areas

Topics

Sociocultural | Human rights | Development

Both speakers emphasize the importance of local-level approaches and working with available resources rather than waiting for top-down solutions, whether through local civil society engagement or community-based infrastructure development.

Speakers

– Mr. Abdallah Alsalmi
– Mr. Poncelet Ileleji

Arguments

Civil society should work at local levels and engage judiciary systems when governments don’t support digital rights initiatives

Infrastructure development must be realistic – focus on equipping community-based media with internet connectivity to disseminate information to those without meaningful broadband access

Topics

Development | Human rights | Infrastructure

Unexpected consensus

Opposition to direct content regulation despite different professional backgrounds

Speakers

– Ms. Paula Gori
– Mr. Poncelet Ileleji

Arguments

Regulation should target risks posed by platform operations rather than content itself, as demonstrated by the EU’s Digital Services Act approach

Content regulation should be avoided as it infringes on freedom of speech; focus should be on fact-checking and moral responsibility of users

Explanation

Despite Gori working in European policy frameworks that could support regulation and Ileleji working in African development contexts, both strongly oppose direct content regulation, showing unexpected alignment across different regional and professional perspectives on fundamental free speech principles.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights

Acknowledgment of public service media limitations and need for improvement

Speakers

– Ms. Paula Gori
– Mr. Patrick Leusch

Arguments

Public service media must adopt more innovative and positive approaches to content production to remain attractive to audiences

International broadcasters invest in censorship circumvention technologies to reach audiences in countries with limited press freedom, sharing research with other independent media

Explanation

Both speakers, while advocating for public service media, acknowledge its current limitations and need for adaptation – Gori noting the need for innovation to remain attractive, and Leusch describing the extensive technical efforts required to reach audiences, showing realistic assessment rather than defensive positioning.

Topics

Sociocultural | Human rights | Infrastructure

Overall assessment

Summary

The speakers demonstrated strong consensus on fundamental principles including the importance of multi-stakeholder governance, opposition to direct content regulation, the crucial role of public service media during crises, and the need for local-level approaches to digital challenges. They also shared realistic assessments of current limitations and the need for innovative solutions.

Consensus level

High level of consensus on core principles with complementary rather than conflicting approaches. The agreement spans technical, policy, and implementation perspectives, suggesting a mature understanding of the complex challenges in meaningful digital access. This consensus provides a strong foundation for collaborative action across different sectors and regions, though implementation details may require further coordination.

Different viewpoints

Content regulation approach

Speakers

– Mr. Poncelet Ileleji
– Giacomo Mazzone

Arguments

Content regulation should be avoided as it infringes on freedom of speech; focus should be on fact-checking and moral responsibility of users

Fact-checking alone is insufficient and requires a more comprehensive, holistic approach including regulation to negotiate effectively with platforms

Summary

Ileleji strongly opposes any content regulation as a violation of freedom of speech, advocating instead for fact-checking and user responsibility. Mazzone argues that fact-checking alone is inadequate and calls for more comprehensive regulatory approaches including platform regulation.

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory | Sociocultural

Unexpected differences

Scope of regulatory intervention needed

Speakers

– Mr. Poncelet Ileleji
– Giacomo Mazzone

Arguments

Content regulation should be avoided as it infringes on freedom of speech; focus should be on fact-checking and moral responsibility of users

Fact-checking alone is insufficient and requires a more comprehensive, holistic approach including regulation to negotiate effectively with platforms

Explanation

This disagreement is unexpected because both speakers are concerned about disinformation and platform accountability, yet they have fundamentally different views on the role of regulation. Ileleji, coming from an African development perspective, takes a strong anti-regulation stance emphasizing individual responsibility, while Mazzone, representing European broadcasting interests, advocates for stronger regulatory frameworks. This suggests different regional or institutional perspectives on balancing freedom of expression with platform accountability.

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory | Sociocultural

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion revealed relatively limited but significant disagreements, primarily centered on regulatory approaches to content and platforms. While speakers largely agreed on fundamental goals like combating disinformation, ensuring meaningful digital access, and strengthening multi-stakeholder governance, they differed on implementation mechanisms and the appropriate level of regulatory intervention.

Disagreement level

Moderate disagreement with significant implications. The main tension between pro-regulation and anti-regulation approaches reflects broader global debates about internet governance, freedom of expression, and platform accountability. These disagreements could impact policy development, as they represent different philosophical approaches to addressing digital challenges – one emphasizing regulatory frameworks and institutional solutions, the other prioritizing individual responsibility and minimal intervention. The disagreements also reflect different regional perspectives and institutional contexts, which could complicate international cooperation on digital governance issues.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers reference Article 19 of international human rights law as fundamental to internet access rights, though Alsalmi argues it needs updating while Leusch uses it as current legal justification for circumvention work.

Speakers

– Mr. Abdallah Alsalmi
– Mr. Patrick Leusch

Arguments

Article 19 of international human rights law is outdated and needs renewal, with stronger commitments to protect internet openness unlike current legal loopholes

Circumvention work is legally justified under Article 19 of the UN Human Rights Charter regarding access to information, which supersedes national censorship laws

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Both speakers recognize the challenge of misinformation spread through digital platforms and the need for trusted sources to counter it, though they focus on different solutions – Gori on algorithmic transparency and Ileleji on community radio fact-checking.

Speakers

– Ms. Paula Gori
– Mr. Poncelet Ileleji

Arguments

Lack of algorithmic transparency prevents understanding of why certain content is promoted, with platforms potentially losing control over their own complex algorithmic systems

Community radio stations play a crucial role in debunking fake news that spreads through messaging apps like WhatsApp in rural areas

Topics

Sociocultural | Human rights | Development

Both speakers emphasize the importance of local-level approaches and working with available resources rather than waiting for top-down solutions, whether through local civil society engagement or community-based infrastructure development.

Speakers

– Mr. Abdallah Alsalmi
– Mr. Poncelet Ileleji

Arguments

Civil society should work at local levels and engage judiciary systems when governments don’t support digital rights initiatives

Infrastructure development must be realistic – focus on equipping community-based media with internet connectivity to disseminate information to those without meaningful broadband access

Topics

Development | Human rights | Infrastructure

Key takeaways

Meaningful digital access requires going beyond basic connectivity to include reliability, affordability, appropriate devices, digital literacy, relevant local content, and safe digital environments

Public service media plays a crucial role in combating disinformation and providing reliable information, especially during crisis situations

Community radio stations are essential for reaching rural populations in developing countries and need strengthening through partnerships with international broadcasters

Internet censorship is a growing global challenge requiring sophisticated circumvention technologies, with legal justification under Article 19 of UN Human Rights Charter

Platform algorithm transparency is lacking, preventing understanding of content promotion mechanisms and creating risks for democratic discourse

Current regulatory frameworks like Article 19 are outdated and need updating to address modern internet governance challenges

Multi-stakeholder governance models need strengthening through local IGF forums and coalition building to prevent internet fragmentation

Resolutions and action items

Re-energize local IGF forums to build coalitions and push governments for open internet policies

Strengthen community radio stations with digital literacy tools and partnerships with international broadcasters

Implement proper data access provisions under the Digital Services Act for academic researchers

Work toward updating Article 19 of international human rights law to address modern digital access challenges

Combine Global Digital Compact implementation with WSIS review to strengthen IGF

Engage civil society at local levels and work with judiciary systems when governments don’t support digital rights

Involve municipalities as key players in digital rights advocacy due to their proximity to citizens

Unresolved issues

How to effectively balance content regulation with freedom of speech concerns

Addressing the financial and infrastructural capacity gaps between large and small organizations when accessing platform data

Determining what policy changes will be needed once full platform data access reveals the true extent of disinformation impacts

Resolving the tension between platform dependence and editorial independence for public service media

Bridging the digital divide for 2.6 billion people still without internet connectivity

Establishing effective mechanisms to prevent government internet shutdowns and website blocking

Creating sustainable funding models for circumvention technologies and mirror servers

Suggested compromises

Focus regulation on platform operational risks rather than content to preserve freedom of speech while addressing harmful effects

Develop independent intermediary bodies to facilitate data access between platforms, regulators, and researchers

Combine infrastructure development with community media strengthening as a realistic approach to meaningful connectivity in underserved areas

Balance transparency requirements for public service media with operational security needs for circumvention activities

Engage multiple stakeholders (government, civil society, academia, technical experts) in dialogue while accepting that parties may ‘agree to disagree’ on some issues

We need to go beyond just simple connectivity and beyond just having a device that is connected to the internet because it’s all about the experience, it’s all about what the internet users can make of the internet.

Speaker

Mr. Abdallah Alsalmi

Reason

This comment reframes the entire discussion by distinguishing between mere technical access and meaningful digital experience. It introduces the crucial concept that connectivity without context, skills, and relevant content is insufficient for true digital inclusion.

Impact

This foundational insight set the framework for the entire discussion, leading other speakers to build upon this distinction throughout the session. It shifted the conversation from technical infrastructure to human-centered outcomes and user experience.

I like to look at it from a grassroots level. What information do community radios are able to provide to their citizens? In most of the cases, you look at sub-Saharan Africa, for example, my beloved continent, where only about 37% of the population have broadband connectivity.

Speaker

Mr. Poncelet Ileleji

Reason

This comment challenges the discussion’s implicit focus on high-tech solutions by grounding it in real-world constraints. It highlights how meaningful access must work within existing infrastructure limitations and emphasizes the continued importance of traditional media as bridges to digital access.

Impact

This perspective fundamentally shifted the discussion from theoretical policy frameworks to practical implementation challenges. It forced other participants to consider how solutions must be adapted to different technological and economic contexts, leading to more nuanced policy recommendations.

We even don’t know the answers that Gen AI is giving to people. So whenever you ask an AI chatbot about something, it is giving you an answer and no one knows it. It is like between you and the chatbot, which is creating an additional element, probably even more scary.

Speaker

Ms. Paula Gori

Reason

This observation introduces an entirely new dimension to the information access problem that hadn’t been previously discussed. It highlights how AI systems create invisible information silos that are even more opaque than social media algorithms.

Impact

This comment expanded the scope of the discussion beyond traditional censorship and platform algorithms to include AI-mediated information access. It added a new layer of complexity to the meaningful access challenge and influenced the conversation toward more comprehensive regulatory approaches.

Article 19 is really, I would say, is really outdated and we need to have another look at it, update it, and renew commitments to it… Any government can shut down the internet at any time without due recourse to legal background or text.

Speaker

Mr. Abdallah Alsalmi

Reason

This is a bold critique of fundamental international human rights law, arguing that existing legal frameworks are inadequate for the digital age. It challenges participants to think beyond current legal structures and consider more fundamental reforms.

Impact

This comment shifted the discussion from operational challenges to fundamental legal and rights-based frameworks. It elevated the conversation to question basic assumptions about how digital rights should be protected internationally, leading to discussions about multi-stakeholder governance and the need for new international agreements.

We shouldn’t have regulation on content. It goes against freedom of speech. So immediately you start trying to regulate content, then you are infringing on the rights of people.

Speaker

Mr. Poncelet Ileleji

Reason

This comment introduces a crucial tension in the discussion by firmly establishing the boundary between acceptable and unacceptable regulatory approaches. It forces the conversation to grapple with the fundamental conflict between combating misinformation and preserving free speech.

Impact

This strong position created a defining moment in the discussion, forcing other participants to clarify their regulatory proposals and distinguish between content regulation and platform behavior regulation. It led to more nuanced discussions about risk-based rather than content-based approaches to platform governance.

If we really access those data, we will understand so many things about disinformation, and also about the impact, that probably we will have to change the whole policy framework once we will have the knowledge of what is happening really online.

Speaker

Ms. Paula Gori

Reason

This comment reveals the profound uncertainty underlying current policy approaches and suggests that access to platform data might fundamentally change our understanding of digital information systems. It acknowledges that current policies may be based on incomplete information.

Impact

This insight added a meta-level perspective to the discussion, suggesting that the policy solutions being discussed might themselves need to be reconsidered once better data becomes available. It introduced humility into the policy discussion and emphasized the importance of evidence-based approaches.

Overall assessment

These key comments collectively transformed what could have been a technical discussion about internet access into a multifaceted exploration of digital rights, governance, and social equity. The progression from Alsalmi’s foundational distinction between connectivity and meaningful access, through Ileleji’s grassroots reality check, to Gori’s insights about AI and data transparency, created a comprehensive framework that addressed technical, social, legal, and ethical dimensions. The comments built upon each other to reveal the complexity of meaningful digital access, moving the discussion from simple solutions to nuanced understanding of interconnected challenges. The tension between Ileleji’s strong stance on content regulation and others’ regulatory proposals created productive friction that led to more sophisticated policy thinking. Overall, these interventions elevated the discussion from operational concerns to fundamental questions about digital rights, democratic governance, and global equity in the digital age.

What is the legal basis for public service media to provide circumvention tools and VPN explainers to audiences in censored countries?

Speaker

Mr. Patrick Leusch

Explanation

This raises important legal and ethical questions about the mandate and authority of public broadcasters to engage in circumvention activities, which was resolved through consultation with German Bundestag Legal Service citing Article 19 of UN Human Rights Charter

How can we update and modernize Article 19 of the UN Human Rights Charter regarding access to information?

Speaker

Mr. Abdallah Alsalmi

Explanation

Article 19 is described as ‘outdated’ and needs renewal to address modern digital access challenges and internet governance issues

When will the European Commission publish the Delegated Act to make platform data access operational for researchers?

Speaker

Ms. Paula Gori and Thora (PhD researcher)

Explanation

The DSA establishes obligations for platforms to provide data access to researchers, but the operational framework through the Delegated Act is still missing, hindering academic research

How can we establish legal protections for internet access similar to those that exist for shortwave radio and satellite TV?

Speaker

Mr. Abdallah Alsalmi

Explanation

Unlike traditional broadcasting technologies protected by International Communications Union rules, the internet lacks legal protection against government shutdowns and blocking

What are the answers that AI chatbots are giving to users about news and information?

Speaker

Ms. Paula Gori

Explanation

There’s no oversight or knowledge of what information AI systems provide to users, creating a potentially more concerning information gap than private messaging apps

How can smaller academic institutions and civil society organizations be equipped to handle large datasets from platforms?

Speaker

Ms. Paula Gori

Explanation

There’s concern about creating a two-speed system where only well-funded institutions can analyze platform data, particularly affecting Eastern European countries and smaller organizations

How can we strengthen partnerships between international broadcasters and community radio stations in developing countries?

Speaker

Mr. Poncelet Ileleji

Explanation

Community radio stations need digital literacy tools and connections to larger media organizations to provide reliable information and counter disinformation at the grassroots level

What is the EBU pledge to platforms that was recently launched?

Speaker

Giacomo Mazzone

Explanation

A specific initiative by the European Broadcasting Union and newspaper associations directed at platforms was mentioned but not elaborated upon

How can we change the narrative around digital rights and democracy to make it attractive to those who don’t believe in democracy?

Speaker

Ms. Paula Gori

Explanation

There’s a need to reframe conversations about digital access and rights in ways that appeal to broader audiences beyond those already committed to democratic values

What role can municipalities play in strengthening meaningful digital access and combating disinformation?

Speaker

Ms. Paula Gori

Explanation

Local governments may be better positioned than national governments to work directly with citizens on digital access and information quality issues

Summary

This discussion focused on digital rights and partnerships, examining strategies for protecting human rights in online environments through cross-sector collaboration. The panel, moderated by Peggy Hicks from the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, brought together representatives from civil society, tech companies, multi-stakeholder organizations, and the European Commission to address challenges in safeguarding digital human rights.

Ian Barber from Global Partners Digital highlighted significant challenges facing civil society organizations, including funding crises, capacity issues, and the erosion of multi-stakeholder governance approaches. He emphasized that civil society organizations are struggling to meaningfully engage in policy processes while facing resource constraints and burnout. Jason Pielemeier from the Global Network Initiative discussed how GNI has successfully expanded its membership globally, bringing diverse perspectives from over 100 organizations across all continents to address tech governance challenges collaboratively.

Alex Walden from Google outlined the technical and operational challenges companies face in content moderation, particularly balancing harm prevention with freedom of expression at scale. She emphasized the importance of stakeholder engagement through forums like IGF and organizations like GNI to incorporate civil society feedback into company policies. Esteve Sanz from the European Commission described the EU’s comprehensive approach to digital rights, including the Digital Services Act and efforts to address the gap between international commitments and actual practice regarding digital repression.

The panelists acknowledged the tension between human rights considerations and competing priorities like national security and economic innovation. However, they argued that these concerns are not mutually exclusive and that human rights approaches can actually reinforce security and innovation goals. The discussion concluded with examples of successful collaborative initiatives and emphasized the critical importance of transparency, accountability mechanisms, and continued multi-stakeholder engagement in protecting digital rights globally.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Challenges facing civil society in digital rights advocacy**: Including funding crises, capacity issues, burnout, and the erosion of multi-stakeholder approaches in governance processes, particularly affecting organizations in the Global South who are already under-resourced.

– **Multi-stakeholder collaboration models and their effectiveness**: Discussion of how organizations like the Global Network Initiative (GNI) work to integrate diverse perspectives from civil society, companies, academics, and investors, with emphasis on expanding global representation beyond North America and Europe.

– **Technical and operational challenges for tech companies**: Balancing the prevention of online harms while respecting human rights, particularly freedom of expression, dealing with issues of scale, speed of content moderation, and navigating complex regulatory environments across different jurisdictions.

– **International cooperation and regulatory frameworks**: The European Union’s approach to digital rights through legislation like the Digital Services Act, the gap between diplomatic commitments and real-world implementation of digital rights protections, and the role of international processes like WSIS+20.

– **Accountability mechanisms and transparency in digital rights partnerships**: Discussion of how to ensure accountability in cross-sector partnerships, particularly when working in the Global South, including the need for transparency, ongoing engagement, and effective watchdog functions.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to foster cross-sector collaboration between civil society, tech companies, governments, and international organizations to strengthen human rights protection in online environments. The panel sought to identify challenges, share good practices, and explore strategies for more effective partnerships in addressing digital rights issues globally.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a professional and collaborative tone throughout, though it acknowledged serious challenges in the field. While panelists expressed concerns about “digital depression” and the gap between commitments and reality, the conversation remained constructive and solution-oriented. There was a notable effort to balance realism about current difficulties with optimism about the potential for meaningful collaboration and the continued importance of defending digital rights. The tone became slightly more hopeful toward the end as panelists shared specific examples of successful initiatives and partnerships.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Peggy Hicks** – Works with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in Geneva

– **Alex Walden** – Global Policy Lead for Human Rights and Freedom of Expression at Google

– **Ian Barber** – Legal and Advocacy Lead at Global Partners Digital

– **Esteve Sanz** – Head of Sector for Internet Governance and Multi-Stakeholder Dialogue at the European Commission

– **Jason Pielemeier** – Executive Director of the Global Network Initiative

– **Audience** – Alejandro from Access Now (asked a question during the Q&A session)

**Additional speakers:**

None identified beyond those in the provided speakers names list.

# Digital Rights and Partnerships: A Comprehensive Discussion Summary

## Introduction and Context

This panel discussion, moderated by Peggy Hicks from the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in Geneva, brought together key stakeholders to examine strategies for protecting human rights in online environments through cross-sector collaboration. The conversation featured Ian Barber from Global Partners Digital, Jason Pielemeier from the Global Network Initiative, Alex Walden from Google (joining from Oslo), and Esteve Sanz from the European Commission.

Peggy Hicks opened by highlighting OHCHR’s recent work in digital rights, including a Brazil judiciary event and a MENA region study examining how digital technology affects human rights defenders. She noted Norway’s resolution calling for assessment of risks faced by human rights defenders through digital technology, setting the stage for a discussion on practical strategies for strengthening partnerships across sectors whilst addressing systemic challenges threatening effective digital rights advocacy.

The discussion took place against a backdrop of increasing digital repression worldwide, funding challenges for civil society organisations, and growing tensions between human rights considerations and competing priorities such as national security and economic innovation.

## The False Dichotomy: Human Rights vs. Security and Innovation

A central theme throughout the discussion was challenging the perceived tension between human rights considerations and other priorities. Alex Walden from Google articulated this position most clearly, arguing that “in order to achieve national security interests, in order to focus on ongoing innovation and have competition in the market, we have to ensure that human rights is integrated across those conversations and remains a priority… we have to do all of them at the same time.”

Ian Barber supported this perspective, arguing that human rights approaches and security outcomes can be mutually reinforcing rather than opposing concepts. This reframing challenges the prevailing narrative that positions human rights as an obstacle to security or innovation, and offers a strategic approach to addressing the funding crisis facing civil society organisations.

Esteve Sanz demonstrated this integrated approach through the EU’s legislative process for the Digital Services Act, which he described as “complex, almost miraculous” in successfully balancing multiple concerns using the Charter of Fundamental Rights as a framework. This example provided concrete evidence that comprehensive regulatory approaches can address multiple priorities simultaneously without sacrificing fundamental rights protections.

## Civil Society Challenges and the Funding Crisis

Ian Barber presented a sobering assessment of the challenges facing civil society organisations in digital rights advocacy. He identified what he termed a “narrative crisis,” where funding has increasingly shifted away from human rights approaches towards national security and economic impact priorities. This shift has created significant capacity issues for civil society organisations, leading to layoffs, burnout, and insufficient expertise to participate effectively in policy forums.

Barber emphasised that these challenges are particularly acute for organisations in the Global South, which were already under-resourced and now face even greater difficulties in meaningfully engaging with policy processes. The proliferation of forums and processes has created an additional burden, making it difficult for under-resourced organisations to keep up and participate meaningfully across multiple venues.

The civil society representative argued that effective collaboration requires moving beyond tokenistic engagement to genuine power-sharing arrangements. He stressed that “the most impactful forms [of collaboration] are going to be those that truly shift power and resources back to civil society,” challenging other panellists to consider concrete accountability mechanisms rather than remaining at the level of aspirational statements about partnership.

## Multi-Stakeholder Collaboration Models and Global Engagement

Jason Pielemeier from the Global Network Initiative provided a contrasting perspective, highlighting successful examples of expanding multi-stakeholder engagement globally. He described GNI’s intentional growth from its original North American and European focus to encompass over 100 members across four constituencies (companies, civil society organisations, academics, and investors) representing all continents.

Pielemeier acknowledged the emotional toll of working in digital rights, coining the term “digital depression” to complement discussions of digital repression. Despite these challenges, he maintained an optimistic perspective, arguing that “the Internet is still an incredibly vibrant and critical space, especially when you compare it to offline mediums for free expression and freedom of association and assembly.”

He also noted the misappropriation of language in policy discussions, specifically mentioning how the phrase “fork in the road” was being used inappropriately in some contexts. The GNI representative emphasised the importance of creating concrete forums that bring stakeholders together around specific, tangible issues rather than abstract discussions.

Importantly, Pielemeier highlighted ongoing collaboration between GNI and Global Partners Digital on WSIS engagement, including workshops in nine countries to involve wider stakeholders in World Summit on the Information Society input processes, demonstrating practical approaches to global engagement.

## Technology Company Perspectives and Operational Challenges

Alex Walden outlined the complex technical and operational challenges that technology companies face in balancing harm prevention with human rights protection. She emphasised the particular difficulty of respecting freedom of expression, privacy, and non-discrimination whilst preventing online harms at the scale and speed required by modern digital platforms.

Walden highlighted the challenge of content moderation, which increasingly requires AI assistance whilst maintaining human oversight for context-sensitive content. She stressed the importance of regulatory safe harbours that enable effective content moderation and policy iteration, noting that the complex regulatory environment across different jurisdictions creates significant operational challenges.

The Google representative described regional stakeholder meetings designed to ensure that feedback reaches both policy-drafting and product-building teams within companies. She specifically mentioned the Rights and Risk Forum held in Brussels the previous month as an example of creating transparent conversations between stakeholders using concrete regulatory artefacts, demonstrating practical approaches to multi-stakeholder engagement around specific policy challenges.

## European Union Regulatory Approaches and Global Diplomacy

Esteve Sanz from the European Commission provided insights into the EU’s comprehensive approach to digital rights protection through both legislative frameworks and international diplomacy. He described the EU’s focus on securing global agreements such as the Global Digital Compact and the Declaration for the Future of the Internet to commit states to respect digital rights internationally.

However, Sanz also presented a sobering assessment of current trends, noting that “we are in a new stage where the Internet is not only controlled, but it’s used for control, and what we see is a very depressing trajectory.” He identified a concerning gap between diplomatic achievements in securing commitments from powerful global actors and the reality of increasing digital repression on the ground.

Sanz mentioned an April conference on “governance of Web 4.0” that resulted in important principles, and described the EU’s public diplomacy efforts, including calling out internet shutdowns and funding projects like protectdefenders.eu to provide urgent support for human rights defenders.

The European Commission representative highlighted the Digital Services Act as a model for balancing human rights considerations with regulatory requirements, specifically noting its application to Very Large Online Platforms and Very Large Online Search Services. He emphasised the upcoming WSIS Plus 20 review as a critical opportunity, describing it as a “fork in the road” for determining future internet governance directions.

## Accountability Mechanisms and Transparency

The discussion of accountability mechanisms was significantly shaped by a question from Alejandro of Access Now, who asked about accountability mechanisms for partnerships, especially when working in the Global South where it’s easy for Global North actors to disengage. This question forced panellists to move beyond aspirational statements to concrete mechanisms for ensuring sustained commitment.

The panellists identified several approaches to accountability, though they acknowledged that current mechanisms remain insufficient. Pielemeier described GNI’s independent assessment process for companies, which includes detailed reviews of internal systems and policies, whilst noting that similar accountability mechanisms for state actors remain limited to “naming and shaming” through bodies like the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.

Barber emphasised civil society’s watchdog role in bringing issues to light through transparency and ongoing iterative processes, arguing that transparency is fundamental to meaningful accountability. Walden pointed to the Digital Services Act as a beginning model for public risk assessments that provide accountability in regulatory settings, though she noted that the effectiveness of these new tools remains to be evaluated.

The discussion revealed consensus that transparency is fundamental to accountability across all sectors, whether through public reporting, independent assessments, or open dialogue. However, the panellists acknowledged that more tangible legal processes and structural supports are needed to ensure accountability, particularly in international partnerships involving Global South organisations.

## Global Engagement Challenges and Resource Distribution

The discussion highlighted significant challenges in ensuring truly global engagement in digital rights protection, particularly in meaningfully including voices from the Global South. Barber described the coordination challenges facing under-resourced organisations, whilst Pielemeier outlined the intentional work required to build global membership and ensure diverse perspectives in governance processes.

The panellists acknowledged that the proliferation of forums and processes, whilst potentially offering more opportunities for engagement, can create overwhelming burdens for under-resourced organisations. This creates a paradox where efforts to increase inclusivity may inadvertently exclude those with the greatest resource constraints.

The discussion revealed ongoing questions about how to scale multi-stakeholder approaches and ensure they reach beyond well-resourced organisations based in major policy centres, with no clear solutions emerging for addressing these structural challenges.

## Future Directions and Critical Junctures

The panellists identified the WSIS Plus 20 review as a critical juncture for determining future directions in internet governance, with the potential to either build on multi-stakeholder human rights values or move in directions that could further marginalise civil society voices. This process represents both an opportunity and a risk for the digital rights community.

Several concrete initiatives were highlighted as ongoing work, including the Global Digital Rights Coalition’s coordination efforts, continued Rights and Risk Forums for discussing regulatory implementation, and various EU diplomatic initiatives. However, the panellists acknowledged that these efforts, whilst valuable, remain insufficient to address the scale of challenges facing digital rights protection globally.

The discussion revealed particular concern about maintaining the internet’s role as a space for freedom whilst addressing legitimate security and innovation concerns. This balance requires continued collaboration across sectors, but the structural challenges facing such collaboration—including funding constraints, capacity limitations, and power imbalances—remain largely unresolved.

## Conclusion

This discussion revealed both the complexity of challenges facing digital rights protection and the potential for meaningful collaboration across sectors when properly structured and resourced. The panellists demonstrated strong consensus on core principles, including the importance of transparency, the need for genuine rather than tokenistic multi-stakeholder engagement, and the concerning gap between international commitments and actual implementation of digital rights protections.

However, the conversation also highlighted significant structural challenges that threaten the sustainability of current approaches, particularly the funding crisis facing civil society organisations and the erosion of inclusive governance mechanisms. The panellists’ emphasis on moving beyond symbolic engagement to genuine power-sharing arrangements reflects a mature understanding of what effective collaboration requires, even as they acknowledged the difficulty of achieving such arrangements in practice.

The discussion balanced realism about current challenges with constructive approaches for moving forward, rejecting the false dichotomy between human rights and other priorities in favour of integrated approaches that treat these concerns as mutually reinforcing. This framework offers promise for future collaboration, though significant work remains to translate it into sustainable practice that addresses the structural inequalities and resource constraints that currently limit effective global engagement in digital rights protection.

Peggy Hicks: Thanks everybody. Please take seats. I’m hoping that you can all hear me through your microphones or through the headsets. It’s all good. Wonderful. You’ll see we’re missing one of our panelists, but we decided to start off because we want to have as much time as possible for you all to hear from our wonderful panelists today and then also to have a chance to open up for your questions and comments as well. This event is focusing on digital rights and partnerships, strategies for impact, and we’re really looking today to have a really open conversation about the intersection of online experiences and fundamental human rights. We want to highlight the challenges that are faced by civil society, tech companies, and enforcement agencies in protecting these rights within what we all know is a complex and borderless online environment. We need to recognize, of course, that each of us come to this issue from a different place, that states are the ones that have the legal obligations to take action, that companies have a duty to respect human rights under the UN guiding principles on business and human rights, and civil society, of course, is there to keep everybody else honest on both of those obligations, one hopes. So we are going to have a chance to talk a little bit about some of the collaborative projects that are going on in this place, some of the good practices that are happening, and obviously the idea today is to really foster more cross-sector collaboration to strengthen human rights protection and online environments so that we all have a better sense of what we’ve learned, what we’re currently doing, and what we can do more. My name’s Peggy Hicks. I work with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in Geneva, and we, too, have been working in this space and trying to figure out what we can contribute. We had a recent event, for example, in Brazil, working with the judiciary on social media regulation. We’ve done a study within the MENA region, focusing on the experiences. And in particular, the idea within that document that we’re looking for a smart mix of mandatory measures and policy incentives that states can put in place that means that they’ll meet not only their obligations to respect human rights, but that they are doing what they need to regulate the space so that companies are also contributing to a more human rights protective environment. We have a project that we’ll probably hear a little bit about during this call, looking at the, which we call the BTEC project, that encourages cross-stakeholder, cross-sector multi-stakeholder engagement, and it’s focused on really trying to work with companies to answer some of the tough questions we see, including around AI and content moderation. And it remains a challenge to figure out how to do this, especially since we’re working with some of the largest companies. One of the big questions is how we make this experience more global, how we engage more with small and medium enterprises. And right now, for example, we have a track that’s focusing on how do we deal with investors within the tech space as well. We have found though, through our discussion with the companies, that the work together with them actually has strengthened the way that they work amongst each other, but also that we learn and have a privileged position through what we learn to be able to bring some of what’s happening within the companies to a more general audience, for which we’re very grateful. We’re also, of course, working with the International Institutions in this space including the UN Human Rights Council and some of the things that come out of that body and I’ll do a shout out now to our host of Norway for a resolution that they passed recently which is important that for example calls on us to assess the risks faced by human rights defenders through digital technology and do work on that issue. So we’re working across these different platforms with our trusted partners to try to have this type of conversation that we’re having today and we’re looking forward to doing it in more depth with you and in order to do that I’m super privileged to have with us a wonderful panel. I guarantee that the panel will not be composed only of men when Alex Walden from Google arrives soon so if anybody’s taking screenshots hold up we’ve got Alex coming soon so we’ll be a bit more balanced but today we’re very fortunate to have with us and I’ll present to you briefly now Jason Pielemeier who we’ve worked with very closely as the Executive Director of the Global Network Initiative and Barber to my right is the Legal and Advocacy Lead at Global Partners Digital and Esteve Sanz is the Head of Sector for Internet Governance and Multi-Stakeholder Dialogue at the European Commission. So you’ll see they come from very different perspectives as well I think so it’ll be really great to have their different contributions. Alex Walden who will join us as I mentioned is the Global Policy Lead for Human Rights and Freedom of Expression at Google. So we’re going to jump right into the conversation and I’m going to turn to you Len Manriquez first and ask you from the perspective of civil society what specific challenges do civil society organizations face in advocating for and protecting online human rights when confronted with these pressing issues. Please.

Ian Barber: Sure thanks Peggy. Good morning I hope you guys can all hear me okay. To answer your question there are a number of challenges that civil society is facing right now especially in the past few years it seems are advocating or pursuing for things along the lines of national security or kind of an economic impact, kind of looking for impact investment. So it’s reflecting kind of a narrative crisis I think I believe for the human rights based approach that needs a kind of a bit of a rethink at this point for us. And this has kind of impacts not just on civil society in the global north but particularly civil society in the global majority which are already you know less well resourced and able to make an impact so I think that’s critical to acknowledge. And this leads to I think some serious capacity issues so of course with lack of funding there’s less of an ability for civil society across the globe to be able to make an impact. We’re seeing this is resulting in layoffs you know burnout and also not having the expertise then to be able to come into these forums and spaces and be able to effectively advocate. We know that there’s been a proliferation of forums and processes in the past few years. It’s quite difficult to keep up with even kind of the standard ones we’ve had around for a while. One’s based in Geneva, UPR focused, one’s treaty based but now you know the UN Cybercrime Convention, the AHC, we have WSIS, we have AI governance efforts at this point. So keeping on top of all these things to be able to have them well resourced with your team is quite difficult and I think those are kind of the central things we’re seeing. And then another big one is also this general erosion I think or challenging of this multi-stakeholder approach to governance or policymaking. So whether it’s at the national level or the regional level or the global level. their CSOs are kind of not able to meaningfully engage and be a part of the decision-making process or be able to input and there’s kind of a lack or a closing of mechanisms that are inclusive and transparent for civil society to be able to engage and this is problematic because we’re seeing then these state-led processes or an increasingly tendency toward states-led processes that then don’t then include the expertise and the advocacy points of civil society, including those that are most impacted, including those that are on the ground and have the knowledge that’s needed to make effective decisions and frameworks. So I think that’s kind of a high-level point. It could go on for a long time, but I think I’ll stop there.

Peggy Hicks: Great. No, I think you’ve hit on many of the points that we’re going to dive into deeper during the conversation and you know, I want to say just on that last point you made, this idea that when civil society isn’t able to put their input, I really want to emphasize that that’s not just a disadvantage to civil society who wants to have their voice heard, but to the process itself and it and it itself is weakened by the lack of the expertise that civil society, a real experience that civil society can bring in. You’ve hit on some of the things that I think everybody is going to want to come back to eventually as well on the the main challenges that we see in the space, which unfortunately are shared I’m sure by all of us on the panel and many of you in the audience as well. But I’ll turn now to Jason and obviously for those that don’t know the Global Network Initiative, although I think most people at IGF do, it represents a unique coalition of civil society, academic, investor, and private stake sector stakeholders. And we’d like to hear more, Jason, about how GNI ensures that diverse perspectives and priorities from all these members are effectively integrated into your strategies for online and human rights protection and maybe give us a concrete example of successful collaborative efforts that you’ve engaged in. Thanks. Yeah, and welcome to Alex who’s joining us. Already introduced you, Alex, so you’re you’re with us.

Jason Pielemeier: Thanks so much, Peggy. It’s a pleasure to be here, I’m really glad to be a part of this panel, to be here in Norway, to be back at the IGF. So, hi to everyone in the audience, both in person and virtually. So, I appreciate the opportunity to share a bit more about the Global Network Initiative, GNI, and how we work, and how we try to create space for and amplify the voices in particular of a really diverse range of stakeholders. As people may know, GNI is a multi-stakeholder organization, so our membership falls into four categories. We call them constituencies, so we have academic members, we have companies, including Google, we have civil society organizations, including Global Partners Digital, and we have investors as members. So, it’s a very big tent, but it wasn’t always that way. When GNI started about 17 years ago, it was a relatively small set of mostly North American and some European organizations. But today, we have over 100 members from every populated continent, and we’ve really made some significant strides to put the global in Global Network Initiative. And that’s been very intentional. We’ve worked really hard over the last decade to reach out to organizations of all types in all kinds of different regions to be very conscious of the issues that we focus on, the spaces that we curate, the events that we attend, in order to really demonstrate our desire to be a part of a truly global conversation and to bring a diverse range of voices into those conversations. So, it hasn’t been straightforward or necessarily easy. to to grow the network the way we have but we’ve been we think quite successful and really appreciate the sort of range of intelligence and viewpoints and experiences that new members have brought into GNI and so that’s you know that’s really part of what we are about is trying to you know build this this space this trusted coalition of organizations that can come together and address difficult challenges in the in the tech governance realm and we we bring work bring our members together in various ways we we do learning sessions we we have a bespoke accountability process for our companies and we’ve made efforts to expand the opportunities for members from across the world to participate in those assessments that we conduct we also try and go out into the world attend other events like the IGF but also regional forums like the forum up for internet freedom in Africa the digital rights and inclusion forum regional IGFs all over the world and hold sessions with our with our members and with other stakeholders and partners in those settings as well in terms of an example I mean I think I guess you know one example of how we’ve grown the network in a way that I think hopefully is having impacts in jurisdictions outside of North America and Europe is the work that we did to bring MTN the South African telecommunications company into GNI MTN has been on a journey for several years now and I think it has worked with a range of actors including I think the BTEC project to understand their responsibilities under the UN guiding principles and other frameworks and to really build out their own approach to human rights. So they’ve developed a really robust human rights statement. They joined GNI in 2022. Their transparency report has gotten much deeper and much more detailed. I encourage folks to take a look at that as an example of a really good technology company transparency report. And they are now going through their first GNI assessment. And that has created a lot of opportunity for them to kind of look inward at their systems and policies and understand better the risks related to their business operations, the jurisdictions that they’re operating in, and to get important feedback from a wide range of stakeholders through GNI. So I’ll stop there. I’m happy to talk more about any of that as we go through the rest of the panel.

Peggy Hicks: Great. Thanks, Jason. And it’s really good to hear about the growth and the way that you’ve been able to do it. I think Len Manriquez had already raised the difficulty and sometimes there’s a commitment to a multi-stakeholder approach, but actually bringing everybody into the room is one of the challenges and doing it in a meaningful way. So your experience in doing that is really good to hear about. I think we’ll need to come back a bit more on some of the challenges, including in terms of some of the disincentives for companies to do it. But we’re going to actually turn to Alex now who’s got very direct experience with, you know, these challenges that companies face in navigating the space. So Alex, if we could hear from you a bit about the significant technical or operational challenges that Google faces in mitigating online harms while simultaneously respecting freedom of expression, including in response to national context and government requests. And after that, you get two questions. The second is how you’re also working to to incorporate feedback from civil society organizations and human rights experts into your policies and practices. Thanks, Alex.

Alex Walden: Thank you. Thanks for the question. And thanks for bearing with me on my travel from Oslo to Lillstrom. It’s a good question and I appreciate the framing because really the challenge is about how do you do, how do you prevent online harms while you are respecting human rights, in particular freedom of expression, privacy, and non-discrimination. So just to censor is not what’s difficult. What’s difficult is to ensure that you’re respecting rights while you are trying to take a tailored approach to removing content that is harmful. So in particular, the two things I want to flag are one, sort of the speed and scale. That is sort of a policy challenge and it’s also obviously a very kind of operational challenge. The amount of content that we have being uploaded to our products every day means that the volume is high and we need to figure out ways to address that at scale. And so we’re using, obviously there are human moderators that participate in that process, especially for content where that requires human kind of context to understand. But we use AI and we’re increasingly using AI to help us do that faster. So again, scale is always, and you’ll hear all the companies say this, scale is a challenge. And so figuring out how to address that scale in a responsible way remains an ongoing challenge that we are always sort of iterating on how to do better. The other piece is really the complex regulatory environment, which means that a few things. One, we need safe harbors in order to do this work effectively to make sure that we are able to implement content moderation practices that are effective and kind of iterate on our policies. And so one is safe harbors and ensuring that we have regulatory. work? In terms of how we engage stakeholders and take feedback, there’s a few things I’d say. On the largest scale, it’s important for companies to show up to venues where our stakeholders are so that we can participate in conversations with them and make sure that we’re hearing from them in that context. So things like IGF, venues like RightsCon, showing up there and being part of the conversation and hearing what the concerns are from stakeholders, those sort of being present is an important thing for us to do at those large venues. Then it’s about being part of organizations where sort of more curated versions of that conversation is taking place. So GNI is an important, being a member of GNI and engaging in GNI is a really important way in which we do that as Google, a place where we have core stakeholders that are talking about these issues and the trade-offs all the time. And then specifically, just Google as an individual company, we have programs in place, part of the human rights program as well as along with our trust and safety colleagues ensuring that we are doing regional stakeholder meetings and stakeholder meetings with our sort of global colleagues as well to make sure that we’re hearing directly from experts in the field about what’s happening in their region, what their experience is with our products, how things are working or are not working and ensuring that that feedback is going directly to the teams that are drafting our policies, enforcing our policies and building our products.

Peggy Hicks: Great, thanks very much Alex. I mean I think this area of stakeholder engagement and what works and what doesn’t is one of those that we have to keep iterating and improving on. We did a BTEC paper on this that people might want to refer to with sort of the five key principles but one of the things we found talking to all of you is that there are good practices and there are ways to improve and that I think there’s still a lot of work to be done. But we need to move over and I’m really glad to have with us another perspective coming from the European Commission, SFS. We’d really like to hear about sort of how does international cooperation play in the European Commission strategy to protect online human rights especially with countries and regions outside the EU and how that might contribute to the WSIS plus 20 process and how you’re looking at the EU’s role in this important space. Thanks.

Esteve Sanz: Thank you so much Peggy. I am very glad to be in this panel, the European voice in the panel. We, digital and human rights are an absolute priority for the EU. We’ve been working on it for a long long time. We have focused especially on getting agreements at the global level including the global digital compact, the declaration for the future of the internet etc that really commit states and critical actors to respect the digital human rights, not censor the internet, not doing internet shutdowns etc. a very important achievement that we did in the Global Digital Compact that commits states in the UN not to shut down the Internet. At the same time there is a gap here. We have done a lot of analysis also, engaged academics and civil society to help us understand what’s going on in the ground when it comes to states using the Internet for control. I think that we are in a new stage where the Internet is not only controlled, but it’s used for control, and what we see is a very depressing trajectory. So there is this gap that is very puzzling between the diplomatic achievements that we have managed to do in committing global actors, very powerful global actors, to respect fundamental freedoms online and what’s going on in reality. So this is very damaging, this is a diagnostic that we have on the table. We have engaged in several funding exercises, we have the Global Initiative for the Future of the Internet that has a project that we call Internet Accountability Compass that will help us precisely analyze this gap, what we are committing into and what’s really going on in terms of digital repression. This is extremely important for us. Every time that we engage on human rights and digital dialogues with countries, we bring up digital depression, that’s very important for us. When there is a big event, an Internet shutdown, we engage in public diplomacy as well, in Iran, in Jordan, so we have callouts for Internet shutdowns there. And there is a lot of investment as well, so we have, for example, projects like protectdefenders.eu which provides funding in case of urgent need for journalists and other civil society actors. We work a lot with you, Peggy, so we have a lot of funding and projects in common, one on Internet shutdowns, several funding projects that really aim at empowering OHCHR. to play a critical role in this in this field and so yes this is all going on we are very much aware of the funding situation there are a lot of internal discussions within the EU how we can step up our role in that area because we feel that this is it’s going to be really dramatic if we don’t act soon of course discussions related to funding are always extremely delicate in any public administration and it’s not difficult but I can assure you that we have achieved some successes already and more funding will be flowing whether the EU can cover all the funding that it’s being extracted from from those organizations it’s of course an open question but it has really sent a signal that the EU should step up I would say so on the wishes on the wishes plus 20 review this is I mean this is very important it links with what I was explaining at the beginning that we have actually achieved a lot of things when it comes to UN discussions about states committing to defend digital rights etc but then when we see it’s a bit puzzling wishes plus 20 review will double up on those efforts so what EU member states have have discussed and this is how we will go to the negotiations of the outcome document is to really take stock of the rise of digital authoritarianism this has been presented by our ambassador to the to the UN already so acknowledging the digital authoritarianism is on the rise and this has we has to be acknowledged and then based on that propose what we aim what we what we hope will be unprecedented language at the UN level in the wishes plus 20 resolution on digital human rights so this language it’s a still object of discussions internal discussions will probably publish an on paper with that language that again we hope it’s not part of any UN resolution because the challenges are so high that we need to move up. Part of that language will be for sure going much more concretely into statements that protect journalists, civil society, etc. from digital repression. But that’s our aim, it’s a public aim, it’s very ambitious, it’s very difficult to achieve and pull off, but we of course count on like-minded partners and stakeholders who will need to be participating very intensively in the WSIS plus 20 resolution to do that. We think that the context is really the good one, so that we can achieve at least that. But again, the reality might be different than whatever the outcome document of WSIS declares, so important to bear in mind that gap.

Peggy Hicks: Oh thank you Esteve. It’s really interesting to hear your comments about the disconnect between where we get to in terms of international commitments and what we see in the world, and I think we feel that on the financial side as well, where the demand for action, for work in this area just grows exponentially, but we are facing some of the challenges that you mentioned. I want to look back just quickly to Len Manriquez, and then I’m going to have a question for everybody, and then we’re coming directly to you all quickly. Len Manriquez, I wanted to ask you, you know, when you look at collaboration from a civil society perspective, what is civil society looking for? What does it need from governments, tech companies, and other stakeholders in order to advance human rights protection? Where have you seen good collaboration happening?

Ian Barber: Great. Well, I just want to say that there’s a lot of great collaboration already on the table from these individuals and from their remarks, so I just want to acknowledge that. But also, I think at the end of the day, the most impactful forms are going to be those that truly shift power and resources back to civil society and allow them to engage. So from governance, we’ve already alluded to this, it’s ensuring that those policy processes, whether it’s national, regional, or global, that they’re actually inclusive, they’re bringing in those voices, that there’s input that’s received, there’s acknowledgement, and there’s a feedback loop as well. So that’s key. I think also funding we’ve hit on already is a key metric, and also kind of recommitting to human rights obligations themselves, of course, when things do happen. from companies I think that you know they can really operationalize their their commitments through transparency and access that can come in a variety of forms and come to access to data it can be on their impact assessments could be enforcement practices also can be this kind of iterative multi-stakeholder engagement with you know groups that are in different regions that are more at risk those are going to be key as well and I think they kind of lead to this co-design and co-development of policy and governance and frameworks that we want to see and I think for more multi-stakeholder coalitions like GNI and again these things are already very much being done is there’s there’s definitely a collaboration deficit that I’m seeing so there’s a recognition that we have challenges but really there’s not always structural support then to address them so what you need to do is then champion equity in partnerships as Jason was alluded to it’s bringing in voices from the global majority of the Global South and civil society as co-leaders better than engaging advocacy setting not just you know kind of tokenism it’s facilitating access to knowledge and sharing that so that engagement can be effective and realized and it also there’s a need to do this to kind of like build a gap of trust I think among stakeholders across different areas because without it we’re going to have a situation where the structures and don’t support everyone and there’s no final effective impact and it’s again this symbolic means of doing things so I think that’s kind of a cross response there but yeah yeah.

Peggy Hicks: That’s great and I think it’s really important to make that point that it’s it’s got to be intentional you have to put the resources and effort into it if you’re going to really make things work in a more global way like like Jason talked about with with GNI so before I turn to the audience I do want to ask one sort of lightning round question of all of you because you started off the end by noting that we’re sort of we’re navigating this human rights field in the midst of of two really oppressive almost pressures from both the the securitization side where all that matters is is you know the cyber crime convention as we showed, you know, looking and David Kaye was just talking about how we make exceptions for anything that may be, you know, relevant from the national security side. And then I think even more prevalent now is this rationale around the competition, innovation, economic side where anything that stands in the way and human rights are sometimes seen as obstacles or barriers to come over means that companies and other stakeholders, including governments seem somewhat less invested in answering some of the questions we’re asking today than they have been for me at least at prior IGFs. So I wondered how you’re looking at that and when you get that type of pressure that, you know, why should we focus on doing it the multi-stakeholder way and bringing in civil society and why does it matter to make sure that we’re building in human rights within the digital tech work that we do given that we have these competing tensions around national security and the need for greater competition and and effective innovation. You know, give me, you know, your 30-second answer to that that you use, which I’m sure comes up quite frequently in everybody’s lines of work. So maybe just to go this way, start with you, Alex.

Alex Walden: Never comes up for me. No, no, never. I think, you know, you just hit on these things that are sort of part of my internal and external conversations every day. From my perspective and what I say to my colleagues inside the company and my stakeholders outside is we have to be able to focus on, we have to figure out how to and to focus on all these things at the same time. In order to achieve national security interests, in order to focus on ongoing innovation and have competition in the market, we have to ensure that human rights is integrated across those conversations and remains a priority. States have a duty to uphold their obligations to human rights and so it is imperative that they in those conversations about regulation, about how they use AI as part of their public sector, ensure that they’re upholding sort of that obligation. And companies also have a duty to do that too. But I think sort of there’s a role for everyone and it is imperative that governments do it first in order to sort of set the stage for all of the other actors to be able to show up and do their part. Companies are providing technology to governments for national security purposes. And we need to know that governments are thinking about their human rights obligations in the context of when they’re procuring that. So I think there’s a lot of good guidance out there. BTEC has done some of it already in thinking about procurement and how companies should be thinking about their human rights obligations. But really like we have to do all of them at the same time.

Peggy Hicks: Great, thanks Alex. Ian?

Ian Barber: Yeah, I think just building on what Alex said for me when I’m speaking to governments or any other stakeholder, I kind of challenge them to say that, actually I don’t think human rights approaches and outcomes and security or whatnot are even potentially even opposing things. They can be very much mutually reinforcing concepts and they can support one another. So to kind of fold them in is kind of a creative way sometimes to Trojan horse to get kind of this funding, which is essential. And I think that really what it comes down to is then as well as that you do need as a final point, civil society in the room to bring that expertise, to bring the knowledge and the know-how to be able to arrive at these solutions. So it’s kind of challenging and rejigging the narrative and then also ensuring that those people are at the table.

Peggy Hicks: Great, thanks. Jason?

Jason Pielemeier: Yeah, I mean, I guess two things. One, taking a step back, I just had sort of an interesting kind of mental moment because when you were talking, you said digital repression and I heard digital depression. And I think that’s because of the comments that we heard initially from Ian and just generally how a lot of us are feeling these days, which I want to acknowledge is real. So we’re dealing with both digital repression and digital depression. But I think it’s really important to remind ourselves. and the Internet is still an incredibly vibrant and critical space, especially when you compare it to offline mediums for free expression and freedom of association and assembly. And that’s something we sometimes forget. We can look at the annual Freedom in the Net reports, which are excellent, and see this trend towards declining freedom. And it’s real. And we have to acknowledge it. But if you compare offline and online realities for people in even and maybe especially the most repressed places on earth, there’s a real reason why they cling to the social media spaces, the open Internet that they are able to access, whether it’s finding cracks through the repressive laws in their country or using anti-censorship technologies to get access to the open Internet. And we don’t have to look far and just look at the example of Iran today to see that reality. So I want to just kind of infuse that sort of optimism or hope that, you know, there is still something worth fighting for. There’s a reason why it’s important to have these important statements from governments, even if they’re not always living up to them in practice. There’s a reason why we continue to get together in these multistakeholder settings to talk about what we can do, even if it’s easier sometimes to sort of give in to cynicism and digital depression. So not an answer to your question, but something that I feel like we needed to kind of just remind ourselves of.

Peggy Hicks: Very helpful. Esteve.

Esteve Sanz: Every time that there is a legislation that deals with digital in the EU, we strive, of course, to find the right balance between security, between all these elements. The legislative process in the EU, it’s a complex one. The parliament is involved, civil society, there are a lot of consultations, a council, the commission, there is a proposal. So it’s a very complex, almost miraculous way of doing legislation. that yields something like the Digital Services Act which is perhaps the cornerstone of our digital regulation right now, that as you well know it’s a null of society approach, that’s what we call it. The legislation itself has pieces that are aimed at involving civil society into the process of governance of the platforms themselves, there are transparency provisions, users can complain about takedowns of content etc. So this, the balance that we found in the legislative process when it comes to the Digital Services Act, we think it’s extremely valuable, of course we are pitching it to our partners globally bearing in mind that each region, each country has its own approach, but so far I think that we have managed to find that approach, that is something very important for us in the EU legislative system which is the Charter of Fundamental Rights. So whatever legislation we put on the table, whatever proposal it’s on the table, it needs to comply with the Charter and having that Charter as the ultimate element that frames everything that we do in the EU but especially on digital has been very valuable because in the end it shows us a path towards finding that balance correctly.

Peggy Hicks: Wonderful, thanks so much. So I’m gonna jump quickly now to our audience to see if any of you have any, we’ve provoked any thoughts from any of you that you’d like to put on the table or any questions for our panel here. I’m not exactly sure how the tech here works, it looks like there’s microphones alongside, I think you probably need to go to one of those, if anybody will give me a thumbs up that that’s how we’re supposed to do it. Yes, okay I see movement, looking forward to hearing the comment of the gentleman, nope he’s just leaving, bye. Anybody want to come in? Trust me we can keep the conversation going amongst ourselves, I know these guys but happy to hear from you. I know it’s a little awkward to have to get out of your chairs. All right, I’ll come back to you all. So I think Jason did something good, which is, I think it is one of those spaces where it’s important for us to look for good examples and to put ideas on the table that we think are things that we want to see replicated. So if you had to just give me an idea of an incentive or something that you think you want to see more of that you’ve seen, you know, either in a particular context in which you’ve worked, give me some good examples that we can leave our audience with today. Alex, can I start with you?

Alex Walden: Yeah, I mean, I think, well, one thing I’ll flag just because maybe it’s top of mind and recent, and because it hits on some of the DSA things too, is I think we, GNI and DTSP, who’s another organization that works with companies around risk assessment and harms issues, convened a risks and rights forum in Brussels last month. And that was an opportunity for all of the companies who are members of GNI and DTSP, who are also VLOPs and VLOSSs under the DSA, to come together and have conversations about the assessments that are now public and all the information that’s in that. And so to really kind of, we have a lot of actual sort of artifacts that we can discuss and talk about the challenges and what people want to see more of from companies. And so I think FORA, where we have a lot of sort of material that we can talk through and have really like open, transparent conversation between civil society and companies, it’s like, that was a really, I think it’s a really excellent example of how we can kind of, we have a piece of regulation where it’s in action and talking amongst the stakeholders about what’s working, what’s not, and how we can improve. So that’s just a recent one that I think is really pressing, especially for companies in particular.

Peggy Hicks: Great. No, I think that’s really an important point, Alex. And to me, it also gives rise to something that I often think. in this space, which is that evidence base, that idea of going beyond the general conversation to really talk about some specific case studies, something went wrong, putting what went wrong on the table sometimes and unpacking it and figuring out how to do better is really important. And I know within our work where we do peer review amongst companies similarly situated, we have some really, really frank and useful conversations that can push things forward. But you can’t do that if you stay at the, you know, 10,000 feet level. Ian?

Ian Barber: Yeah, I think I want to mention the kind of precedent of modalities and process and procedure that we’ve seen. So in the AHC, the negotiations, the UN Cybercrime Convention, in both a formal and informal way, there’s kind of evidence, even if the final output wasn’t what we would have been looking for, that you can use this kind of existing basis moving forward in other forums. So the modalities of the AHC was a bit more open for civil society and others to engage and provide input and have that be taken in and speak for the UN, which is great. And then also informally, there’s a brain trust organization group that was working with companies across the stakeholder lines to kind of advance our central aim. So I think that those two examples have been used then in other UN processes and forums to kind of replicate it to then build in a more multi-stakeholder approach to things, which I think is excellent. And also a selfless plug, which is GPD is now working for the WSIS Review, coordinating the Global Digital Rights Coalition, working with CSOs in the Global North and Global South, which you’ve seen as good practice, and other stakeholders. So we’ll be doing that moving forward. So another positive note to hopefully end on.

Peggy Hicks: Great, thanks. I’m going to skip over you, Jason. I’m going to go to Esteve, because you already put yours on the table. I’ll give you another chance, though.

Esteve Sanz: In April, we organized a global multi-stakeholder conference on what we call the governance of Web 4.0, which is essentially the impact of AI, quantum, et cetera, on the internet. So that global impact of those very powerful technologies, blockchain. and others into the global internet, not the governance itself of these technologies. This was a very well attended and very intense conference and there was a very prominent human rights angle. And what emerged from that is actually a series of principles that were object of consensus or rough consensus among the conference participants that basically set the ground so that we can continue being optimist in the context of this future internet, which is the stakes are much higher. What you can do with AI in terms of repression is massive. What you can do with AI in terms of freedom of speech and liberation and analysis of bureaucratic processes so that you empower citizens, etc., it’s also massive. So what we set up after that conference were this series of principles that set the ground to while we see the future internet emerging, if we want to continue seeing the internet because this is not a given, the internet, it’s what we make out of it, right? If we want to make that space to continue to be a tool for self-expression and for freedom and for democracy, etc., these are the principles that we think we should follow. So this was very, you know, it leaves us with a lot of optimism because it was relatively easy to, of course not every stakeholder was in that table, but it was relatively easy to come up with a series of principles that would chart a good path. So this is also impacting our position in the WSIS Plus 10D negotiations. We will bring up these higher stakes when it comes to these very powerful technologies impacting the internet, that if we don’t set things right, then things can go massively wrong very easily. And we hope that this is acknowledged in the UN context as well.

Peggy Hicks: Great. Back to you, Jason.

Jason Pielemeier: Yeah, maybe just mention one other collaboration across this table. The Rights and Risk Forum and the work we’re doing on the Digital Services Act and also trying to think about how we continue to… ensure that not just the risk assessments under the DSA, but those under the Online Safety Act and other digital regulations remain consistent with the UN guiding principles and broader international human rights frameworks, but also we’ve been working recently with GPD to empower civil society voices from the global majority to be more engaged in the WSIS process precisely so that we can support the kinds of initiatives that it sounds like the EU is eager to put forward and make sure that these are not just seen as sort of Western approaches that that don’t resonate and have support across the world. So just today, I think we’ll be publishing a series of reports from the partners in in nine different countries. We’ve done workshops at lightning pace over the last two months around the world with civil society actors in these different countries to help inform a wider audience and involve a wider group of stakeholders in the input processes to WSIS. Obviously that work will continue over the next several months until the end of this year when the WSIS process concludes. But I think it’s really important to emphasize WSIS as I mean here being here at the IGF as a just as such a critical moment for this community given that all of these new technologies are creating opportunities for governance to go in different directions and that direction could learn from and build on and incorporate the sort of multi-stakeholder human rights based values that we have successfully collectively pioneered as a community or they could go in a different direction. And so it’s it’s really a fork in the road. Not a phrase that I like to use anymore given the way it’s been misappropriated, but I think it’s a it’s a critical time for us to be here together at the IGF and really appreciate all of the panelists here sort of speaking about how we can continue to work towards that WSIS outcome that will sort of reinvigorate the multi-stakeholder

Peggy Hicks: And you jumped ahead again, which I think is really good. It shows we’re on the same track, because the next thing I wanted to ask, and I don’t see anybody lined up at the mic yet. Maybe somebody back there. Please come over and do it. I’ll throw out my question, too, and I’ll let you all choose. A number of you have focused on the difficulty sometimes in making sure that both the resources and the engagement is happening as effectively outside of Europe and a global north context, and figuring out how more can be done, both to reap the benefits of digital technology, but also to make sure that the tools and resources needed to have the types of conversations and engagement that we need in places without as many resources, how we can better make sure that that is happening. So I wanted to get your thoughts on that, but turning to our colleague here first. Please.

Audience: Thank you. Alejandro from Access Now, and I think very related to that comment is, what are the accountability mechanisms for these type of partnerships, especially when you’re working in the global south and it’s very easy for global north actors to disengage when these type of partnerships are happening? In your experiences, what are those accountability mechanisms that we can create?

Peggy Hicks: Great question. Thank you very much. So I will maybe just, Jason, you want to start on that one, if you’re doing quite a bit?

Jason Pielemeier: Sure. So I think accountability can take a lot of different forms, to Alejandro’s question. I think there are, you know, in GNI, for instance, we have an accountability mechanism that is built in to hold companies to the commitments that they make. And that’s a process that involves sort of very detailed review of internal company systems and policies. independent assessors. And as I mentioned at the beginning, we’ve been working really hard to sort of build more opportunities for a wider group of GNI members to be a part of those conversations. I think at the sort of multilateral level, the question of accountability has always been a somewhat vexing one. The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights does a really important, plays a very important role in calling out where states fall short of their commitments. But more tangible legal processes are lacking in many contexts. We do have, obviously, committees related to different treaty bodies that can produce reviews. We have the universal periodic review. We have the special mandates. So it’s not a barren field, but it is also one that is not, that still could be sowed with, I think, more seeds. I don’t know. I’ll stop trying to torture that analogy. And I think for some of these other spaces, whether it’s the IGF itself as a venue for collaboration or the WSIS process, the Global Digital Compact, yeah, it’s an open question, right? How do we ensure that not just the states that are producing the final text, but the other stakeholders who are committing themselves and involving themselves in those processes continue to carry them out? Part of it involves being at places like the IGF, where we can continue to sort of stand on stages and have to answer to audiences about what we’ve done since we’ve made these commitments. Part of it involves, I think, funding and being able to have support for watchdogs like Access Now and others in civil society. So it’s going to take a lot of different tools, but I think at least in this space, you know, we have forums and venues like this, which we sometimes take for granted, but I think we need to double down and reinvest in.

Peggy Hicks: Great, Esteve you want to say few words on accountability side?

Esteve Sanz: If you don’t get journalists, civil society activists, etc. to call out those abuses,

it’s going to get very difficult at the global level to trace that. Because, again, we are having this legitimacy gap between what is written, the safeguards, etc., and what we see in practice. And there is a fundamental problem of complexity and transparency that either you engage the multi-stakeholder community to tackle that, or we will simply not know.

Peggy Hicks: And I think that’s a lead-in for you, Len Manriquez, to both look at the accountability question from a civil society side and the role that it plays.

Ian Barber: Yeah, I mean, civil society can play a key role and, as was noted, serving as kind of a watchdog or an observer, even. And one that can then bring the issues or problems to light to the broader community, I think, is a central component and one that’s kind of overlooked, in a way. And I think that when you’re speaking about accountability in general, a lot of this comes down to transparency, openness, and decision-making in the processes and what’s been done in moving forward. And this should not just be a one-off event, as has been alluded to. It should be done in an iterative and ongoing way and in different manners. So I’ll keep it short and sweet.

Peggy Hicks: And, Alex, on your side, the company side?

Alex Walden: Yeah, I mean, I think, at least for GNI companies, Jason hit on a key piece for us, which is the independent assessment that we have as members of GNI. And so that’s a key way in which we are looking to ensure that we have accountability for our commitment to principles, the GNI principles in particular. And then, obviously, being transparent about our commitment to the UNGPs and how that manifests across our products. That looks like qualitative transparency about what our policies are, quantitative transparency about how we’re implementing them, enforcement measures, etc. And that’s not just for global majority, that’s the entire world and how we’re enforcing that. Obviously, we have the Digital Services Act in Europe. And so that is a sort of beginning entree of what sort of a risk assessment, a report that becomes public can look like. And so I think we’re all learning about what the value of something like that is for the purposes of accountability in a regulatory setting as well.

Peggy Hicks: Yeah, no, I think that’s a really good point. And thanks so much for the question, because I think it’s one where we really are learning now. And I think that’s an important thing to say, how useful are some of these tools going to be? Do they provide the value that we need? I think Len Manriquez’s point about the transparency pieces is absolutely crucial that without transparency, we don’t get to accountability very easily. But I’m sure there’s more we can do, and I’m sure Access Now will help us to figure it out. So thanks so much for the comment. And I’m getting the signal that we’re going to have to draw the session to a close. In doing so, I really want to thank those that are responsible for the organizing of it, which was not my office, but Christina Herrera from Google and Erlinson from ADAPT, who brought us all together today. We’re very glad to have a chance to talk through these issues with you. I hope you come away from it with some good ideas on potential collaboration, comments that you want to follow up on in the course of IGF going forward. And obviously, feel free to reach out to any of the panelists to get more information on some of those good practices that we’ve discussed. Thanks so much for joining us today. Exploring the Fascinating Minds of Octopuses Subscribe to our YouTube channel for more videos on Fascinating Minds of Octopuses!

Agreement points

Multi-stakeholder engagement requires intentional effort and resources to be truly global and inclusive

Speakers

– Jason Pielemeier
– Ian Barber
– Alex Walden

Arguments

GNI’s intentional growth from North American/European focus to over 100 global members across four constituencies

Need for civil society to be co-leaders rather than token participants, with structural support for effective engagement

Importance of showing up at venues where stakeholders are present and being part of curated conversations through organizations like GNI

Summary

All speakers agree that meaningful multi-stakeholder collaboration cannot happen by accident – it requires deliberate investment of time, resources, and structural changes to move beyond tokenism to genuine partnership, particularly in engaging voices from the Global South.

Topics

Human rights | Development

Transparency is fundamental to accountability in digital rights protection

Speakers

– Ian Barber
– Alex Walden
– Jason Pielemeier
– Peggy Hicks

Arguments

Civil society’s watchdog role in bringing issues to light through transparency and ongoing iterative processes

Digital Services Act as beginning model for public risk assessments providing accountability in regulatory settings

GNI’s independent assessment process for companies with detailed review of internal systems and policies

Importance of moving beyond high-level discussions to evidence-based case studies for meaningful progress

Summary

All speakers emphasize that transparency – whether through public reporting, independent assessments, or open dialogue – is essential for holding both companies and governments accountable for their digital rights commitments.

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

There is a concerning gap between international commitments on digital rights and actual implementation

Speakers

– Esteve Sanz
– Jason Pielemeier
– Ian Barber

Arguments

Gap between diplomatic achievements in securing commitments and reality of digital repression on the ground

Role of OHCHR and treaty bodies in calling out state failures, though more tangible legal processes are needed

Erosion of multi-stakeholder approach with closing mechanisms for inclusive and transparent civil society engagement

Summary

Speakers acknowledge a troubling disconnect between formal international agreements and diplomatic commitments on digital rights versus the reality of increasing digital repression and exclusion of civil society from governance processes.

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers reject the false dichotomy between human rights and security/innovation, arguing instead that these objectives can and should be pursued simultaneously as mutually reinforcing rather than competing priorities.

Speakers

– Alex Walden
– Ian Barber

Arguments

Need to focus on human rights, national security, and innovation simultaneously rather than treating them as competing priorities

Human rights approaches and security outcomes can be mutually reinforcing rather than opposing concepts

Topics

Human rights | Cybersecurity

Both speakers emphasize the value of creating concrete forums and processes that bring stakeholders together around specific, tangible issues rather than abstract discussions, whether through regulatory compliance or global governance processes.

Speakers

– Jason Pielemeier
– Alex Walden

Arguments

Rights and Risk Forum in Brussels as example of transparent conversation between stakeholders using concrete regulatory artifacts

Series of workshops in nine countries to involve wider stakeholders in WSIS input processes

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Both speakers argue that excluding civil society from policy processes is not just unfair to civil society organizations, but fundamentally weakens the quality and effectiveness of the policy-making process itself by removing essential expertise and perspectives.

Speakers

– Ian Barber
– Peggy Hicks

Arguments

Erosion of multi-stakeholder approach with closing mechanisms for inclusive and transparent civil society engagement

Civil society exclusion weakens policy processes themselves, not just disadvantages civil society

Topics

Human rights | Development

Unexpected consensus

Optimism about internet’s continued value despite digital repression trends

Speakers

– Jason Pielemeier
– Esteve Sanz

Arguments

Internet remains vibrant space for freedom compared to offline mediums, especially in repressed contexts like Iran

EU’s legislative process through Digital Services Act demonstrates successful balance using Charter of Fundamental Rights as framework

Explanation

Despite acknowledging serious challenges with digital repression and the gap between commitments and reality, both speakers maintain optimism about the internet’s fundamental value and the possibility of achieving proper balance through appropriate governance frameworks. This is unexpected given the generally pessimistic tone about current trends.

Topics

Human rights | Freedom of expression

Companies and civil society agreeing on need for regulatory safe harbors

Speakers

– Alex Walden
– Ian Barber

Arguments

Complex regulatory environment requiring safe harbors for effective content moderation and policy iteration

Narrative crisis with funding shifting toward national security and economic impact rather than human rights approaches

Explanation

It’s somewhat unexpected that both a company representative and civil society advocate would implicitly agree on the need for regulatory safe harbors, as civil society often pushes for stronger regulation while companies typically seek regulatory flexibility. Their shared concern about the current regulatory environment suggests common ground on the need for balanced approaches.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights

Overall assessment

Summary

The speakers demonstrate strong consensus on several key issues: the need for genuine (not tokenistic) multi-stakeholder engagement, the fundamental importance of transparency for accountability, and the concerning gap between international commitments and actual protection of digital rights. They also share concerns about the erosion of inclusive governance processes and the challenges facing civil society organizations.

Consensus level

High level of consensus on core principles and challenges, with speakers from different sectors (government, civil society, private sector, international organization) largely agreeing on both problems and solutions. This suggests a mature understanding of digital rights issues across stakeholder groups, though the consensus also highlights the urgency of addressing systemic challenges in funding, inclusion, and accountability mechanisms. The agreement across diverse perspectives strengthens the legitimacy of calls for more resources and structural changes to support effective digital rights protection.

Different viewpoints

Approach to addressing funding crisis in civil society

Speakers

– Ian Barber
– Esteve Sanz

Arguments

Narrative crisis with funding shifting toward national security and economic impact rather than human rights approaches

EU’s public diplomacy efforts calling out internet shutdowns and funding projects like protectdefenders.eu for urgent support

Summary

Ian Barber identifies a fundamental narrative crisis where funding is shifting away from human rights approaches, while Esteve Sanz presents the EU’s approach of maintaining funding for human rights work alongside security concerns, suggesting different perspectives on whether the shift is inevitable or can be countered

Topics

Human rights | Development

Scale of multi-stakeholder engagement challenges

Speakers

– Jason Pielemeier
– Ian Barber

Arguments

GNI’s intentional growth from North American/European focus to over 100 global members across four constituencies

Proliferation of forums and processes making it difficult for under-resourced organizations to keep up and participate meaningfully

Summary

Jason presents GNI’s expansion as a success story of inclusive growth, while Ian emphasizes how the proliferation of forums creates overwhelming burdens for under-resourced organizations, representing different views on whether expanding engagement opportunities helps or hinders effective participation

Topics

Human rights | Development

Unexpected differences

Optimism vs. pessimism about digital rights trajectory

Speakers

– Jason Pielemeier
– Esteve Sanz

Arguments

Internet remains vibrant space for freedom compared to offline mediums, especially in repressed contexts like Iran

Gap between diplomatic achievements in securing commitments and reality of digital repression on the ground

Explanation

This represents an unexpected philosophical divide where Jason emphasizes reasons for optimism about the internet’s continued value for freedom, while Esteve presents a more pessimistic assessment of digital repression trends, despite both working toward similar goals

Topics

Human rights | Freedom of expression

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion revealed relatively low levels of direct disagreement among speakers, with most conflicts being subtle differences in emphasis, approach, or perspective rather than fundamental opposition. The main areas of disagreement centered on funding approaches, engagement strategies, and assessment of current trends.

Disagreement level

Low to moderate disagreement level. The speakers largely shared common goals and values around digital rights protection, but differed on tactical approaches, resource allocation strategies, and assessment of progress. These disagreements are constructive and reflect different organizational perspectives and experiences rather than fundamental ideological divisions. The implications are positive – the disagreements suggest a healthy diversity of approaches within a shared framework, which could lead to more comprehensive and effective strategies if properly coordinated.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers reject the false dichotomy between human rights and security/innovation, arguing instead that these objectives can and should be pursued simultaneously as mutually reinforcing rather than competing priorities.

Speakers

– Alex Walden
– Ian Barber

Arguments

Need to focus on human rights, national security, and innovation simultaneously rather than treating them as competing priorities

Human rights approaches and security outcomes can be mutually reinforcing rather than opposing concepts

Topics

Human rights | Cybersecurity

Both speakers emphasize the value of creating concrete forums and processes that bring stakeholders together around specific, tangible issues rather than abstract discussions, whether through regulatory compliance or global governance processes.

Speakers

– Jason Pielemeier
– Alex Walden

Arguments

Rights and Risk Forum in Brussels as example of transparent conversation between stakeholders using concrete regulatory artifacts

Series of workshops in nine countries to involve wider stakeholders in WSIS input processes

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Both speakers argue that excluding civil society from policy processes is not just unfair to civil society organizations, but fundamentally weakens the quality and effectiveness of the policy-making process itself by removing essential expertise and perspectives.

Speakers

– Ian Barber
– Peggy Hicks

Arguments

Erosion of multi-stakeholder approach with closing mechanisms for inclusive and transparent civil society engagement

Civil society exclusion weakens policy processes themselves, not just disadvantages civil society

Topics

Human rights | Development

Key takeaways

Civil society faces a narrative crisis with funding shifting from human rights approaches to national security and economic impact priorities, leading to capacity issues and reduced ability to participate effectively in digital rights advocacy

Multi-stakeholder collaboration requires intentional effort and resources to be truly global and inclusive, moving beyond tokenism to meaningful co-leadership roles for civil society organizations

Tech companies face significant challenges balancing online harm prevention with human rights protection, particularly around speed/scale issues and complex regulatory environments

There is a concerning gap between international diplomatic achievements in securing digital rights commitments and the reality of increasing digital repression on the ground

Human rights, national security, and innovation can be mutually reinforcing rather than competing priorities when properly integrated into policy frameworks

Transparency is fundamental to accountability, with new models like the Digital Services Act providing examples of public risk assessments and stakeholder engagement

The internet remains a vital space for freedom of expression compared to offline alternatives, particularly in repressive contexts, making continued protection efforts essential

WSIS Plus 20 represents a critical fork in the road for determining whether future internet governance will build on multi-stakeholder human rights values or move in a different direction

Resolutions and action items

Global Partners Digital is coordinating the Global Digital Rights Coalition for the WSIS Review, working with civil society organizations globally

GNI and partners published reports from workshops in nine countries to inform wider stakeholder input into the WSIS process

EU will propose unprecedented language on digital human rights in the WSIS Plus 20 resolution, acknowledging the rise of digital authoritarianism

Continued Rights and Risk Forums will be held to discuss Digital Services Act implementation and other regulatory frameworks with concrete examples

EU’s Internet Accountability Compass project will analyze the gap between digital rights commitments and actual digital repression practices

Unresolved issues

How to adequately fund civil society organizations globally to maintain their capacity for digital rights advocacy

How to make multi-stakeholder engagement more effective and truly global, particularly including voices from the Global South

How to bridge the gap between international commitments on digital rights and actual state practices of digital repression

What specific accountability mechanisms can be developed for partnerships working in the Global South to prevent disengagement by Global North actors

How to scale successful collaboration models like GNI to include more small and medium enterprises

How to effectively integrate investor engagement in tech governance and human rights protection

How to maintain the open internet’s role as a space for freedom while addressing legitimate security and innovation concerns

Suggested compromises

Using human rights approaches as a way to ‘Trojan horse’ funding by demonstrating how human rights and security outcomes can be mutually reinforcing

Developing a ‘smart mix’ of mandatory measures and policy incentives that allows states to meet human rights obligations while enabling appropriate regulation

Creating iterative, ongoing engagement processes rather than one-off events to build trust and ensure sustained collaboration

Establishing safe harbors for companies to enable effective content moderation while maintaining human rights protections

Using existing successful process modalities from forums like the AHC negotiations as templates for more inclusive multi-stakeholder approaches in other venues

I think that we are in a new stage where the Internet is not only controlled, but it’s used for control, and what we see is a very depressing trajectory. So there is this gap that is very puzzling between the diplomatic achievements that we have managed to do in committing global actors, very powerful global actors, to respect fundamental freedoms online and what’s going on in reality.

Speaker

Esteve Sanz

Reason

This comment reframes the entire discussion by distinguishing between the internet being ‘controlled’ versus being ‘used for control’ – a subtle but profound distinction that highlights how digital infrastructure has become a tool of oppression rather than just being restricted. It also identifies the core paradox of digital rights work: the gap between international commitments and ground reality.

Impact

This observation became a recurring theme throughout the discussion, with multiple panelists referencing this ‘gap’ between commitments and reality. It shifted the conversation from focusing solely on policy solutions to acknowledging the fundamental disconnect between diplomatic achievements and actual implementation, adding a layer of realism and urgency to the discussion.

So we’re dealing with both digital repression and digital depression. But I think it’s really important to remind ourselves… the Internet is still an incredibly vibrant and critical space, especially when you compare it to offline mediums for free expression and freedom of association and assembly.

Speaker

Jason Pielemeier

Reason

This comment is particularly insightful because it acknowledges the emotional toll of working in digital rights (‘digital depression’ – a play on Esteve’s ‘digital repression’) while providing crucial perspective. It challenges the prevailing pessimism by recontextualizing online spaces relative to offline alternatives, especially in repressive contexts.

Impact

This comment served as a pivotal moment that injected much-needed optimism into what had become a rather somber discussion about funding cuts, capacity issues, and rising authoritarianism. It reframed the conversation from one of defeat to one of continued purpose, reminding participants why their work matters and providing emotional grounding for the remainder of the discussion.

At the end of the day, the most impactful forms [of collaboration] are going to be those that truly shift power and resources back to civil society and allow them to engage… it’s not always structural support then to address them… it’s again this symbolic means of doing things.

Speaker

Ian Barber

Reason

This comment cuts through the diplomatic language often used in multi-stakeholder discussions to identify the core issue: the difference between symbolic inclusion and actual power-sharing. It challenges other panelists to move beyond tokenistic engagement to meaningful structural change.

Impact

This observation forced other panelists to be more specific about their collaboration efforts and accountability mechanisms. It elevated the discussion from general statements about ‘multi-stakeholder engagement’ to concrete questions about power dynamics, resource allocation, and genuine partnership, leading to more substantive responses about actual practices and challenges.

In order to achieve national security interests, in order to focus on ongoing innovation and have competition in the market, we have to ensure that human rights is integrated across those conversations and remains a priority… we have to do all of them at the same time.

Speaker

Alex Walden

Reason

This comment directly addresses one of the session’s central tensions by rejecting the false choice between human rights and other priorities. Instead of accepting trade-offs, it argues for integration – a more sophisticated approach that acknowledges complexity while maintaining principles.

Impact

This response helped shift the framing away from human rights as an obstacle to innovation/security toward human rights as an integral component of sustainable solutions. It influenced subsequent speakers to also reject the either/or framing and think more holistically about how different priorities can be mutually reinforcing rather than competing.

What are the accountability mechanisms for these type of partnerships, especially when you’re working in the global south and it’s very easy for global north actors to disengage when these type of partnerships are happening?

Speaker

Alejandro (Access Now)

Reason

This question from the audience cuts to the heart of power imbalances in international digital rights work. It challenges the panel’s discussion of partnerships by highlighting the structural inequalities that make such partnerships fragile and potentially exploitative.

Impact

This question forced all panelists to grapple with concrete accountability mechanisms rather than staying at the level of aspirational statements. It brought the discussion full circle to Ian Barber’s earlier points about power and resources, and prompted more specific responses about transparency, ongoing engagement, and structural supports for meaningful partnership.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally shaped the discussion by introducing critical tensions and reframes that prevented the conversation from remaining at a superficial level. Esteve’s observation about the gap between commitments and reality established a sobering foundation that ran throughout the session. Jason’s ‘digital depression’ comment provided crucial emotional and strategic reframing that prevented despair from overwhelming the discussion. Ian’s focus on power dynamics challenged other participants to move beyond tokenistic approaches, while Alex’s integration argument offered a path forward that doesn’t sacrifice principles. Finally, Alejandro’s accountability question from the audience brought concrete urgency to abstract discussions of partnership. Together, these comments created a discussion that was both realistic about challenges and constructive about solutions, balancing acknowledgment of systemic problems with practical approaches for moving forward. The interplay between these perspectives created a more nuanced and actionable conversation than would have emerged from purely optimistic or pessimistic framings alone.

How to make cross-stakeholder engagement more global and better engage with small and medium enterprises

Speaker

Peggy Hicks

Explanation

This addresses the challenge of expanding beyond large companies to include smaller tech enterprises in human rights discussions and ensuring global representation rather than just North American/European perspectives

How to deal with investors within the tech space for human rights protection

Speaker

Peggy Hicks

Explanation

There’s a need to understand how to engage financial stakeholders who influence tech companies to prioritize human rights considerations in their investment decisions

How to assess the risks faced by human rights defenders through digital technology

Speaker

Peggy Hicks

Explanation

This was mentioned as part of a UN Human Rights Council resolution calling for specific work to understand and address threats to human rights defenders in digital spaces

How to bridge the gap between diplomatic achievements in human rights commitments and reality on the ground

Speaker

Esteve Sanz

Explanation

There’s a puzzling disconnect between global actors committing to respect fundamental freedoms online and the actual rise in digital repression that needs to be analyzed and addressed

How to ensure regulatory frameworks provide adequate safe harbors for effective content moderation

Speaker

Alex Walden

Explanation

Companies need clear legal protections to implement responsible content moderation practices while respecting human rights, but the complex regulatory environment makes this challenging

How to maintain human rights focus amid competing pressures from national security and economic competition narratives

Speaker

Peggy Hicks

Explanation

There’s a concerning trend where human rights considerations are being deprioritized in favor of security concerns and economic competitiveness, requiring strategies to maintain their importance

What accountability mechanisms can be created for partnerships working in the Global South to prevent disengagement by Global North actors

Speaker

Alejandro (Access Now)

Explanation

This addresses the need for structural safeguards to ensure sustained commitment and prevent abandonment of collaborative efforts in resource-constrained regions

How to better support civil society capacity building given funding challenges and proliferation of forums

Speaker

Ian Barber

Explanation

Civil society organizations face resource constraints while needing to engage across an increasing number of policy processes, requiring strategic approaches to capacity building and engagement

How to evaluate the effectiveness of new transparency and risk assessment tools like those under the Digital Services Act

Speaker

Alex Walden

Explanation

As new regulatory frameworks create public accountability mechanisms, there’s a need to assess whether these tools provide meaningful value for human rights protection

Summary

This discussion featured John Evans, Digital Services Commissioner at Coimisiún na Meán (Ireland’s media and online safety regulator), presenting how the organization contributes to media safety and aligns with the Global Digital Compact commitments. Evans explained that the regulator, established just over two years ago, has an unusually significant role in European digital regulation because many major tech platforms are headquartered in Ireland. The organization operates under six strategic areas: children’s protection, democracy, consumer trust, diversity and inclusion, culture, and public safety, all of which align closely with Global Digital Compact principles of human rights, internet governance, digital trust, and information integrity.

Evans detailed Ireland’s role as a Digital Services Coordinator under the EU’s Digital Services Act, explaining how this involves complex coordination at international, bilateral, and domestic levels. The regulator handles approximately 80% of complaints against online platforms due to Ireland’s status as their European base. He focused particularly on two strategic areas: democracy and children’s protection. Regarding democracy, Evans described extensive work during Ireland’s election year, including developing candidate protection packs and coordinating with other European regulators to address electoral integrity challenges. For children’s protection, he outlined both content-focused approaches through Ireland’s online safety code and systems-focused measures under the Digital Services Act.

The organization has grown rapidly from 40 to over 200 staff members, with plans to reach 300, demonstrating Ireland’s serious commitment to digital regulation. During the Q&A session, Evans addressed questions about resource allocation, policy implementation challenges, and coordination with other regulators, emphasizing the network-based approach of European digital regulation and Ireland’s responsibility to regulate not just for Irish citizens but for all Europeans.

Keypoints

**Major Discussion Points:**

– **Ireland’s unique regulatory role in Europe**: As home to many major tech companies (15 of 25 very large online platforms), Ireland’s media regulator Coimisiún na Meán has an outsized responsibility, handling approximately 80% of complaints against online platforms across Europe through the Digital Services Act framework.

– **Electoral integrity and democracy protection**: The regulator’s comprehensive approach to safeguarding elections, including developing toolkits with other European coordinators, creating candidate protection packs, and implementing measures to combat disinformation while supporting safe political participation online.

– **Child protection and online safety**: A two-pronged regulatory approach addressing both content (through Ireland’s online safety code prohibiting harmful content like self-harm promotion) and systems (through Digital Services Act provisions requiring platforms to protect minors’ safety, security, and privacy).

– **International coordination and network governance**: The complex web of relationships required for effective digital regulation, including cooperation with European Digital Services Coordinators, domestic agencies, NGOs, and international bodies like the Global Online Safety Regulators Network.

– **Resource allocation and enforcement challenges**: The regulator’s growth from 40 to over 200 staff (targeting 300), prioritization strategies based on risk assessment, and the balance between policy development speed and the urgency of addressing online harms.

**Overall Purpose:**

The discussion was a presentation by Ireland’s Digital Services Commissioner explaining how the country’s media regulator contributes to online safety and democratic values, both domestically and across Europe, followed by a Q&A session addressing practical regulatory challenges and enforcement approaches.

**Overall Tone:**

The tone was professional and informative throughout, with the presenter demonstrating confidence in Ireland’s regulatory approach while acknowledging significant challenges. During the Q&A, the tone became more conversational and collaborative, with the commissioner showing openness to dialogue and willingness to share experiences. There was a notably positive moment when an audience member complimented the regulator’s integrity, contrasting it favorably with Ireland’s data protection regulation, which seemed to energize the discussion around Ireland’s evolving regulatory reputation.

Speakers

– **John Evans**: Digital Services Commissioner at Coimisiún na Meán (Ireland’s media and online safety regulator)

– **Maria Farrell**: Irish citizen, digital and human rights activist

– **Audience**: Multiple audience members asking questions (roles/expertise not specified)

**Additional speakers:**

– **Niamh Hannafin**: Assistant Director for International Affairs at Coimisiún na Meán, Ireland’s media and online safety regulator

– **Paul**: Colleague of John Evans involved with new legislation on the democracy side (specific title not mentioned)

# Comprehensive Discussion Report: Ireland’s Digital Services Regulation and the Global Digital Compact

## Overview and Context

This discussion featured John Evans, Digital Services Commissioner at Coimisiún na Meán (the Irish language name for Ireland’s media regulator), presenting how the organisation contributes to media safety and aligns with Global Digital Compact commitments. The session, introduced by Niamh Hannafin and including contributions from Maria Farrell (a fellow Irish citizen) and multiple audience members, provided an in-depth examination of Ireland’s unique role in European digital regulation and the practical challenges of implementing comprehensive platform oversight.

The discussion took place against the backdrop of Ireland’s distinctive position in the European digital landscape, where the country hosts 15 of the 25 very large online platforms regulated under the EU’s Digital Services Act. This geographical concentration of major tech companies has transformed Ireland’s media regulator into a body with responsibilities extending far beyond its national borders, effectively making it a key player in protecting digital rights across the entire European Union.

## Ireland’s Unique Regulatory Position and Organisational Structure

Evans began by explaining the extraordinary scope of Coimisiún na Meán’s responsibilities, emphasising that the organisation, just over two years old, handles approximately 80% of complaints against online platforms across Europe. This disproportionate responsibility stems from Ireland’s status as the European headquarters for major technology companies.

The regulator operates under six strategic areas that align closely with Global Digital Compact principles: children, democracy, consumer protection from exploitation and scams, diversity and inclusion, culture, and public safety. These areas correspond directly to the Compact’s focus on human rights, internet governance, digital trust, and information integrity, demonstrating how national regulatory frameworks can support international digital governance objectives.

The organisation’s rapid expansion reflects Ireland’s commitment to its new regulatory mandate. Evans detailed how the regulator has grown from 40 to just over 200 staff members, with plans to reach 300 employees within another six to nine months. Just over half of current staff support online safety work. This dramatic scaling represents a significant investment in regulatory capacity and signals a transformation from the organisation’s previous incarnation as the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland.

## Electoral Integrity and Democracy Protection

One of the most detailed aspects of Evans’s presentation focused on the regulator’s work protecting democratic processes, particularly during Ireland’s election year. The approach demonstrates the complexity of safeguarding electoral integrity in the digital age, requiring coordination across multiple levels and stakeholders.

The regulator developed comprehensive election guidelines and toolkits in collaboration with other European Digital Services Coordinators. These tools address electoral integrity challenges by requiring platforms to implement specific measures, including elevating official sources of information and limiting the spread of disinformation during critical electoral periods.

A particularly innovative initiative was the creation of candidate protection packs, developed in cooperation with Irish police. These resources help politicians understand how to respond when targeted online during elections, providing practical guidance for maintaining safe participation in public life. Evans noted that the regulator is currently conducting research to evaluate the effectiveness of these packs, indicating a commitment to evidence-based policy development.

The democratic protection work extends beyond individual elections to encompass broader concerns about political participation and media freedom. However, this area also highlighted some implementation challenges, particularly regarding new media privilege rules for journalistic content in platform content moderation systems, where platforms remain uncertain about execution requirements.

## Child Protection and Online Safety Framework

Evans outlined a sophisticated two-dimensional approach to protecting children online, addressing both content-specific harms and systemic platform design issues. This comprehensive framework demonstrates how modern digital regulation must operate across multiple regulatory instruments to achieve effective protection.

The content dimension operates through Ireland’s online safety code, which prohibits platforms from hosting harmful material such as content promoting self-harm or eating disorders. This approach focuses on removing specific types of dangerous content that could directly harm young users.

The systems dimension, implemented through the Digital Services Act, requires platforms to protect minors’ safety, security, and privacy through structural changes to their operations. This includes prohibiting addictive design features targeted at children and implementing robust age verification systems. Evans noted that guidance from the European Commission on Article 28 of the Digital Services Act, which specifically addresses minor protection, will emerge later in the year.

The regulator is pursuing coordinated enforcement actions regarding adult sites, following the European Commission’s investigations into four adult sites. Digital Services Coordinators are examining coordinated action for platforms below the 45 million user threshold, with Coimisiún na Meán serving as vice chair of the working group. Additionally, educational initiatives are being expanded, with the “rights rules and reporting online educational resource” distributed to primary schools and plans for cinema-based awareness campaigns targeting parents during summer months, with Evans hoping for “a rainy summer in Ireland as usual” to maximize cinema attendance.

## International Coordination and Network Governance

A significant portion of the discussion addressed the complex web of relationships required for effective digital regulation in an interconnected world. Evans emphasised that the Digital Services Act creates a network-based approach to regulation, moving beyond failed self-regulatory models to establish meaningful coordination between member states and the European Commission.

This network approach involves multiple levels of coordination: international cooperation through bodies like the Global Online Safety Regulators Network, bilateral relationships with other European regulators, and domestic coordination with various agencies and civil society organisations. The complexity of these relationships reflects the inherently cross-border nature of digital platforms and the harms they can facilitate.

Evans highlighted the value of learning from other regulatory approaches, specifically mentioning Australia’s eSafety Commission and the UK’s Ofcom as examples of different models being tested globally. This international perspective suggests that effective digital regulation will emerge through experimentation and knowledge sharing rather than a single prescribed approach.

However, the network model also raises concerns about potential vulnerabilities. An audience member questioned how Ireland would handle coordination with member states that might have weak digital service coordinators or experience rule of law backsliding. Evans responded that the European Commission and Digital Services Board provide protective mechanisms through shared accountability and mutual support, though this remains an area requiring ongoing attention.

## Resource Allocation and Enforcement Challenges

The discussion revealed significant tensions around resource adequacy and prioritisation in digital regulation. An audience member’s direct question about resource allocation prompted Evans to provide detailed insights into how the regulator manages its enormous mandate with finite resources.

The regulator employs a risk-based prioritisation approach, considering factors such as platform reach, user demographics, and past enforcement actions across Europe. This systematic approach attempts to focus regulatory attention on areas where intervention can have the greatest impact on user safety and rights protection.

However, the scale of the challenge remains substantial. Evans acknowledged the tension between the need for rapid action due to the severity of emerging harms and the time typically required for regulatory frameworks to prove their effectiveness. The resource challenge is compounded by Ireland’s responsibility to regulate not just for Irish citizens but for all Europeans using platforms headquartered in Ireland.

## Implementation Challenges and Practical Concerns

One area of discussion emerged around the gap between policy aspirations and regulatory reality. An audience member from the OECD raised concerns about policy discussions that propose interventions without adequate consideration of enforceability and implementation challenges.

This highlighted tensions in digital governance between the pressure to develop responses to digital harms versus the practical constraints facing regulators who must actually implement and enforce policies. The audience member argued that regulatory expertise is often inadequately integrated into policy development processes.

Evans acknowledged this challenge while defending the approach of working within existing frameworks and learning from implementation experience. He provided context about how internet regulation evolved from a “hands-off” approach to current targeted legislation like the Digital Services Act and Digital Markets Act, suggesting that regulatory frameworks must develop iteratively.

## Ireland’s Regulatory Reputation and Independence

A significant moment in the discussion came when Maria Farrell directly addressed Ireland’s regulatory approach. She noted positive recognition of Coimisiún na Meán’s work, stating that the regulator has gained recognition for “acting with strength and integrity as a regulator,” contrasting this with criticism of other regulatory approaches.

Evans responded by emphasising the importance of having a clear strategic direction and mission that serves as a “North Star” for the organisation, suggesting that consistent principles help maintain regulatory independence despite changing contexts. He also noted the importance of political support for the regulator’s mandate.

This exchange highlighted the critical importance of regulatory credibility and independence in digital governance, particularly in jurisdictions where economic interests might otherwise influence regulatory effectiveness.

## Key Areas of Discussion and Consensus

The discussion revealed substantial agreement on several key points. All participants acknowledged the enormous scope and complexity of platform regulation, recognising that limited resources require careful prioritisation and strategic thinking about regulatory intervention.

There was strong agreement on the importance of cross-border regulatory coordination, even while acknowledging the challenges this creates when some member states may have weaker regulatory capacity. The network-based approach of the Digital Services Act was generally viewed as a positive development over previous self-regulatory models.

The discussion also revealed agreement on the urgency of regulatory action despite implementation challenges. While participants acknowledged significant constraints in current approaches, there was consensus that waiting for perfect solutions is not viable given the severity of emerging digital harms.

## Ongoing Challenges and Future Considerations

Several significant issues remain challenging, highlighting areas requiring continued attention. The challenge of coordinating with member states that may have weak digital service coordinators represents a potential concern in the European regulatory network.

The implementation of new media privilege rules for journalistic content in platform content moderation remains unclear, with platforms reportedly uncertain about execution requirements. This reflects broader challenges in translating policy objectives into practical platform operations.

Questions about long-term regulatory sustainability and maintaining effectiveness across changing political contexts represent ongoing considerations for digital regulators.

## Conclusion

This discussion provided valuable insights into the practical realities of digital regulation in contemporary Europe. Ireland’s experience as a Digital Services Coordinator demonstrates both the possibilities and constraints facing regulators tasked with protecting digital rights and democratic values.

The conversation revealed that effective digital regulation requires appropriate legal frameworks, adequate resources, political support, international cooperation, and ongoing adaptation to evolving challenges. The emphasis on evidence-based policy development, international cooperation, and maintaining regulatory independence provides a foundation for continued progress in this critical area of governance.

Evans’s presentation and the subsequent discussion highlighted both the significant challenges and the practical approaches being developed to address digital harms while protecting fundamental rights and democratic processes in an interconnected digital environment.

John Evans: Hello, hi there. Good afternoon. Thank you very much for attending and thank you to IGF. My name is Niamh Hannafin. I’m Assistant Director for International Affairs at Commissioon na mBan, Ireland’s newly established media and online safety regulator. I’m very pleased to introduce to you our commissioner, our Digital Services Commissioner, John Evans Evans, who’s going to talk you through the ways in which we are contributing to a healthy media and online landscape in Ireland, but also towards some of the key commitments of the Global Digital Compact. Over to you, John Evans. Thanks, Niamh. Okay. So I can see the slides. So I guess first of all, Commissioon na mBan, it’s the Irish language for the media regulator. So we’re a new regulator. We’re just over two years old. We have a pretty broad mandate covering online safety through media development with a particular emphasis on Irish culture as well, which is an important part of our identity as an organisation. We have an unusual or sort of an outsized role in the European setting because so many of the large, the very large online platforms, so many of the large big tech companies are established in Ireland. And our mission, let me say a quick word about the companies we regulated. So that I mentioned media development, I mentioned online safety, and I mentioned kind of broadcasting regulation. And you can see just quite a variety of recognisable brands in there. It means quite a span of work for the organisation. You’ll see that our mission here, particularly recognises the role that the media plays in underpinning fundamental rights and in fostering an open and democratic pluralistic society. CNAM’s vision of a thriving, diverse, creative, safe and trusted media landscape and our strategic direction very closely align with the Global Digital Compact. The Global Digital Compact emphasises human rights, internet governance, digital trust and information integrity. And as you’ll see, as I’m talking through our strategy in a moment and then a few examples that these principles kind of shine through very clearly. So this is like a busy sort of a slide, but what I’ll talk to you very quickly is the six strategic areas or areas of emphasis. Children, so we want a media landscape that upholds the rights, wellbeing and development of children and their safe engagement with content. Democracy, a media landscape that supports democracy, democratic values and underpins civic discourse and reduces the impact of disinformation. We also want a media landscape that consumers can trust where they are protected from exploitation and scams. Diversity and inclusion, a media landscape that promotes the values of justice, equality and diversity. And then finally, culture, a media landscape that is sustainable, pluralistic and participative and that reflects who we are as a society. And again, as an Irish person, our culture is emphasised very importantly in our mission. The last one is public safety. This is kind of a broad one and it captures everything from terrorist content online through to, for example, a response to emergency situations. A word on our regulatory approach. Empowering people and ensuring that they have the tools to understand media, they have information to make decisions, to make good decisions, that’s part of our toolbox. Supporting and developing the Irish media landscape. We see that as very symbiotic between, on the one hand, the cultural aspect but on the other, navigating the online world. So there, for example, journalism schemes that we would support is a very important part of our toolkit. We are a research and future-focused organisation so it’s important to understand from a market perspective and technology perspective what the future is going to look like and how we can expect things to change and how the regulatory response should adapt as we move on. At the core, however, is holding regulated entities to account. So our role is really moving beyond a self-regulatory model which, in many respects, hasn’t worked. I want to say a bit more about an internet governance ecosystem. So within our delivery tools, if you like, we have included, on the one hand, collaborating for impact and then also influencing the European framework. So what I’m going to talk a little bit about is sort of the C, the coordinator, in the Digital Services Coordinator role. So under the Digital Services Act, Commissioner Mann is the Digital Services Coordinator for Ireland. And that C is quite a complicated role, that coordinating role is quite complicated. So if you think at the international level, the fulcrum of what we do is really around participation in the European network along with other Digital Services Coordinators and the European Commission, but also in other media networks supporting regulation. Bilateral relationships with other Digital Services Coordinators across Europe, other media regulators frequently, but other kinds of regulators as well, is very important. The reason for this is that on an operational level, when someone wants to complain about a platform that is established in Ireland, they need to make the complaints to their local Digital Services Coordinator and that’s transmitted to the Irish regulator. So that means that the Irish regulator is responsible for dealing with upwards of 80% of the complaints against online platforms. So that’s a very operational role that we have. And then in the experience sharing space, we try to participate in other kind of fora that go beyond Europe. So for example, the OECD, some of the UN organizations, but also the Global Online Safety Regulators Network of which we’re a founding member. Then domestically, it’s also reasonably complicated. So we’re not the only competent authority under the Digital Services Act in Ireland. Our competition and consumer protection is also one. So relationships with that organization are very important. Our police service on Garda Síochána we do need to cooperate with them as well. They have a role under the Digital Services Act and more broadly as a complimentary agency in the online safety space. Other digital regulators. So for example, we have close relationships with our Telecommunications Regulator and importantly our Data Protection Commission with whom we’re also drafting a cooperation agreement. But then there’s a wider set again of agencies that are involved in the different areas of harm that I mentioned, say, or that are addressed by our strategic objectives. So for example, the Electoral Commission in the electoral integrity space, that’s one example. But there are many departments and agencies that fall into this category from our Department of Health through to our Electoral Commission and in many NGOs. So non-government organizations are also very important in this area. So the coordinating role is really quite a demanding role in terms of internet governance bodies in this space. Now of the six strategic objectives that I outlined earlier, I want to go into a bit more detail about two of them. They are the democracy one and the children one, okay? And the reason I want to spend a bit more time on these now is because as I said at the beginning, beginning, right at the beginning, we’re a new agency and we’ve been developing our capacity to address these areas of these different strategic objectives. Two very important ones right from the outset were democracy and minor protection. So on the democracy side last year was, you know, it’s often said now it was the year of elections and in Ireland it was no difference. So last year we had a European parliamentary elections, we had a referendum, we had local elections and we also had general election and then actually later this year we will have a presidential election so there’s no let-up. But across Europe, right across Europe, there were European elections obviously and many general elections as well in which we had some role. So we engaged intensively in our own elections but we played a supportive role within the network of digital services coordinators across Europe. So digital regulation, it works best when there is coordination across countries. Elections have become a lightning rod, if you like, for newly created governance structures, for example in the DSA and DSC’s last year and this year worked closely with the EEC to share best practice, exchange election experiences and collectively solve problems and develop tools. And it’s it’s a really good example of where the Digital Services Act and the network of agencies involved working together in a horizontal way to address problems can be quite effective. So while an election is not an emergency, it does require a degree of agility on the part of regulators, they need to be responsive to changing circumstances. So with the EU, the digital services coordinators have developed a toolkit, if you like, to help address some of the challenges that arise in the context of electoral integrity. So first, early last year, it was one of the first things that the Digital Services Board, the newly established board under the Digital Services Act, approved was the guidelines, the election guidelines. So the guidelines include measures aimed at platforms, recommendations aimed at platforms for measures which mitigate the risks to electoral integrity, such as elevating official sources of information around electoral processes, demonetizing and limiting the spread of disinformation, labelling political advertising and importantly an onus on platforms to build internal teams that are capable of addressing national local elections. As most of the, actually 15 of the 25 very large online platforms are based in Ireland, we had to participate, we were privileged to participate in many of the pre-election preparations in the in different member states. So that involved attending workshops and scenario planning and then roundtables involving whoever the local agencies and bodies who were in the kind of local electoral ecosystem. So we did one of our own of these and so at that we would have had our Electoral Commission, we would have had the platforms, we would have had some fact-checking agencies, we had also An Garda Síochána very importantly, our police force. There’s a couple of extra points I just want to make in relation to electoral integrity. One is that, this is very important I feel, is supporting that safe participation of politicians in public life. We undertook a specific initiative with our police force, An Garda Síochána, last year to develop a candidate pack. So the candidate pack was developed first for the European elections and local elections and then further enhanced for our general election. The candidate pack was aimed at candidates participating in these elections, so they would know what to do and have to hand quickly information about how to respond when they were targeted, if they were targeted for whatever reason, online. We feel that made a difference but we’re conducting research at the moment to find out exactly how that helped and I think this is an area where we look to develop. The second area that I want to focus on is child rights or minor protection. So children’s rights and the protection online has become an issue of concern worldwide and it’s critical that action is taken. Different regulatory approaches are being tested in different parts of the world, the social media bans for example are being proposed in several countries. In Ireland and within Europe we see this problem as having two dimensions, first is sort of a content dimension and the second is systems. So on the legislative instruments that we have are our Digital Services Act which we feel addresses principally the systems aspect and then our online safety code which comes from the Audiovisual Media Services Directive as part of the transposition of that directive international law. So our online safety code, it clearly defines and lays out the kind of content that children need to be protected from. So regulated platforms must preclude the uploading and sharing of content that promotes self-harm or suicide, eating and feeding disorders and cyberbullying. They also requires the use of age assurance to ensure that children are not normally exposed to videos that contain pornographic or depictions of gross gratuitous violence. There are also provisions relating to parental controls. On the system side, the Digital Services Act on the other hand, it’s a content neutral instrument and instead it has provisions that mean that platforms need to take appropriate measures to protect the safety, security and privacy of minors, that’s the wording of Article 28 of the Digital Services Act, the safety, security and privacy of minors. How platforms are supposed to go about implementing that article of the DSA will be informed by guidance that the European Commission has recently consulted on and which will emerge later this year. The draft guidelines you’ll have seen are quite extensive and but they cover issues covering related to prohibiting addictive design features, age verifications to prevent minors viewing age-inappropriate content, having child accounts or accounts aimed at teenagers set to the highest level of privacy and recommender systems that do not result in the repeated exposure of content that could pose risks to their safety or security. It’s important to say as well that there are also key enforcement activities already underway, so just a couple of weeks ago the European Commission announced the opening of investigations into four adult sites, so these are very large online platforms and so they fall within the purview of the European Commission, but to complement that action the Digital Services Coordinators who have responsibility for below threshold, so these are platforms including adult platforms of which there are many, that have numbers of users below the 45 million threshold that defines the very large online threshold. So to complement that action that the European Commission is taking, the Digital Services Coordinators across the Member States are looking into a coordinated action to address the similar problems arising on the below threshold adult sites. Commissioner Naaman is quite active on that, we are the vice chair of the working group of the Digital Services Board that is looking to help develop a coordinated action. But it’s not all just about enforcement as well, aside from our regulatory powers Commissioner Naaman also supports rights of children through other initiatives such as raising awareness and media literacy efforts, so last year for example we published rights rules and reporting online educational resource and that has been distributed to primary schools throughout the country and later this year we’re looking to extend that to primary age children as well. Alongside that we will be doing kind of a fairly extensive awareness raising campaigns to support one the schools but also parents and during the summer we’re actually going to run a media campaign in cinemas in the hope that we’ll have a rainy summer in Ireland as usual and parents will take their children to see see movies and we’ll get to see that particular advertisement. Just a couple of comments to round up and the challenges that we face as digital regulators whether it’s promoting children’s welfare or safeguarding democracy, they’re not isolated issues, they’re interconnected challenges that require a coordinated and innovative response that put fundamental rights at the centre. Ireland’s unique position as home to some of the major tech companies means that we have quite a heavy responsibility but also an opportunity. We’re not just regulating for Ireland in many respects, we’re also regulating for European citizens. The global digital compact and division of an inclusive open safe and secure digital space is not just an aspiration, it’s a practical framework and it’s reflected very very clearly in our organisation’s strategic statement. As we look forward Commissioner Mann remains committed to not just regulating the digital future but actively shaping it in service of an open democratic and pluralistic society. The work we do today will determine whether technology serves humanity’s aspirations or undermines them so I think we are at a critical moment in Europe in particular and we will see whether or not the regulatory measures and systems and frameworks that we put in place and which are now developing that they will have impact. It’s an interesting time. Thank you. Any questions now, if anybody’s interested? Thank you very much. It sounds like you have a lot of obligations and a huge task and not to put more pressure on you but we kind of count on you to take you know to take on the battle against the platforms for the rest of us in the EU. How do you make your choices? Do you have enough resources? What is your policy on prioritising with the resources that you have given all the challenges that there are? Yeah sure, when we started we just had 40 people in the organisation that was the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland that was a kind of legacy organisation. They did traditional broadcasting regulation so to that remit was added the online safety brief which is huge right and we’re now at just over 200 people and we think within another six to nine months we’ll be at 300 people. About a hundred and just over half I think of those are kind of in one way or another supporting the online safety side of the work of the organisation. So Ireland has taken the responsibility quite seriously and really put the resources into that and any time we’re asked politically we always get the support that we’re looking for and it is an important mandate and society has rallied around it. We could even see it in the kinds of people that have come to work with us since we had a concern maybe that we might not be able to attract because we’re a public service organisation great people but we have people have been really interested in in the mandate. Second thing I’d say is that we’re not alone as a regulator here I do want to emphasise the network nature of the regulatory approach in Europe. So you know my French colleagues often describe the digital services that network or digital services I can act on the network approach as a sort of a team with the European Commission being the captain. Ireland has a very important role to play not because so many of the platforms are based here and but we do have the support of the Commission and also other digital services coordinators. On prioritisation we have said publicly and we are developing the mechanisms in the background to see how we can focus our regulatory efforts more precisely. So at the very highest level I articulated you know if you just set aside the Irish culture one for just for a second the other five you can kind of invert them and think of them as areas of harm. So online hate, the undermining of electoral processes and so on. Those are kind of five kind of high-level areas that we try to focus on. But on top of that we’ve tried to layer or we’re trying to layer kind of this what we call this risk-based approach. So what kind of what kind of reach does a platform have? Does it for example I have a lot of young users? If it does then it’s going to move up at the move up the rankings in terms of potential risk under the child protection strategic objective. And there’s many of those kind of characteristics that you can observe and from service characteristics to how many for example takedown orders have been issued by competent authorities across Europe against the particular platform. That tells you how a particular platform is setting up its trust and safety business.

Audience: Thanks so much for this interesting overview. I have two questions that are somehow interrelated. And the first one is so I work at the OECE in a policy space where very often I think for this big if we go back to kind of like this power concentration and big tech and platform perspective very often in the policy discussions there are calls for interventions that are maybe not necessarily enforceable right. So very often then in this discussion we have and people raising concerns about this is not implementable or enforceable from the legal side or from the regulatory side. So my first part of the question would be do you feel that you with your expertise and specific and background knowledge on how complex these issues are that this is also taken up on the other side of the spectrum in the policy and regulatory development whether there’s kind of this interlinkage. And then the second part of the question which is maybe too specific and please feel free to ignore it if it’s too specific but I’d be interested to hear specifically your thoughts on this because you also mentioned the elevation of authoritative content in the election context but now there is also the specific rule on media privileges so this privilege of journalistic content on platform content moderation which is also very contested and discussed and it will now be I think applicable as of August and at least from the platforms that we spoke with they don’t really know how to do it yet so I wonder if if you have already prepared for that if you already have some some approach of of how to to approach it from a regulatory and regular regulatory body and enforcement side.

John Evans: Thanks. Okay yeah the second one is quite specific but I’d be happy to talk to you we’re getting ready as well so but I’d be happy to talk to you afterwards and I have a colleague here Paul who’s kind of involved with the on some of the new legislation coming down to track on the democracy side so I’ll be happy to chat. But on the skills do we have or does the policy side have the the requisite skills to to carry out the mandate okay and with new recommendations new approaches being proposed all the time. Sometimes it is hard to keep up it’s it’s it’s if you cast your mind back 15-20 years and the approach to the regulation of the internet was let’s let’s keep our hands off it for the moment let’s see how it develops Gradually, problems started to emerge very early. It was perceived to be around concentration issues, so competition policy was seen to be maybe an appropriate measure, consumer protection measures to a degree, but it became apparent over a number of years that there was certain characteristics of the platform economy that were unique and were driving different dynamics that the regulatory systems were not capable of handling effectively. So enter Digital Services Act and the Digital Markets Act in the late teens, and the Digital Services Act and the Digital Markets Act, they’re kind of twins if you like, were trying to address the emerging harms that had become, that were becoming apparent. Both of those pieces of legislation were pushed through in really quite a, in a speedy way. It’s kind of, European legislation takes time to develop and emerge and I think they stand out as being, as having been done quite quickly. But also I think it’s recognized that they are a first step in developing a comprehensive, efficient, streamlined regulatory process. So you always have this tension between trying to work within the system that you have and people at the same time recommending actually that’s not going to work well, you need to try this, you need to, I think we need to try what we have first, see what works, learn from it and develop new things as we mature. But I think the problem is that the harms are perceived as really quite severe and we just don’t have time to wait and see how things mature. If you look back at a different regulatory system, say telecommunications for example, there the framework was developing and evolving over a period of 25 years as competition was embedded in European telecommunications markets. I don’t think we have that same privilege of waiting to see how things develop, we need to move quite quickly in the online safety space, I think. I don’t know if that answers the question, but I’m happy to chat, yeah.

Maria Farrell: Hi, I’m Maria Farrell, I’m a fellow Irish citizen and I have a compliment for you and a question. And the compliment is that amongst other digital and human rights activists around Europe, Camargo na mBan has already a reputation of acting with strength and integrity as a regulator, which has been completely lacking in our data protection regulator and how Ireland deals with tax and the tech co’s. So you guys have completely are changing the narrative on what we can do as a country to actually stand up to our responsibility to regulate these firms that are headquartered in Ireland. My question to you is what are you doing and can you do to ensure that you continue to act with that strength, with that integrity, with that moral courage that says, you know, we are going to stand up to these firms and stand in defence, in active defence of European democracy?

John Evans: I always give a two-part answer to this. The first is that we’re really quite proud of the strategy document that we put together, we think it’s a pretty solid North Star for us. So we were supposed to refresh and renew these things every every two or three years or so. We don’t expect the top our mission and the strategic objectives to change dramatically over the next while. Those are going to be consistent North Stars if you like. So we think we have the strategic direction quite well set and embedded in the organisation and I think we think that will endure. The other side of it is is that just from a resource resource wise, we’re not pushing closed doors in a sense that there is an expectation that we will act and we’re happy to do that, you know, we’re happy to do that. But independent regulation is independent regulation, political context changes, but until somebody changes the law we’re going to enforce the law to the best of our ability.

Audience: I’ll try as best as I can to make it short. I was wondering the DSA being sort of content agnostic, how do you see a role as a regulator in this network of other regulators, especially in relation to member states where there may be rule of law backsliding. So how would you relate as an Irish media commission to member states with perhaps the last strong digital service coordinator or making decisions that you do not agree with from a rule of law perspective.

John Evans: I think part of the protection against that is the role that the European Commission has to play, but also the Digital Services Board. So we get to hold each other to account and but also support each other within that network. And really I think the key pieces, you know, there’s very important articles that the digital services coordinators have a shared responsibility with the European Commission, but the piece around the systemic article 34, article 35, those are really the core strategic pieces, the central planks of the Digital Services Act and I think those are the best protections. We’re happy to chat, yeah, yeah, yeah, can I do another one, yeah? Gosling, yeah, yeah, yes, we’re part of Gosling, yeah, yeah, I kind of described participation in the Digital Services Board as strategic and there’s a kind of operational aspect to that. The Global Online Safety Regulators Network, that’s really excellent in trying to understand different regulatory approaches in different countries and what are best practices, because often Australia’s eSafety Commission is well ahead of us in terms of, kind of, along the regulatory path than we are in certain respects, and there’s a lot for us to learn from that. The Ofcom is a member of that as well and they’re a well-established very expert regulator for whom we have a lot to learn, but also we’re happy to share the European experience in that network as well, yeah, yeah. Okay, I’d better go, sorry, but I’m happy to chat. Thanks.

Agreement points

Resource adequacy and prioritization challenges in digital regulation

Speakers

– John Evans
– Audience

Arguments

Regulatory Challenges and Resource Allocation

Regulatory Challenges and Resource Allocation

Summary

Both acknowledge the enormous scope and complexity of platform regulation, with limited resources requiring careful prioritization. There’s recognition that Ireland faces a disproportionate responsibility for EU-wide platform oversight.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Data governance | Consumer protection

Importance of cross-border regulatory coordination

Speakers

– John Evans
– Audience

Arguments

Cross-Border Regulatory Coordination

Cross-Border Regulatory Coordination

Summary

Both recognize the critical need for effective coordination between regulators across jurisdictions, though they acknowledge challenges when some member states may have weaker regulatory capacity or governance issues.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Jurisdiction | Human rights principles

Gap between policy development and regulatory implementation

Speakers

– John Evans
– Audience

Arguments

Regulatory Challenges and Resource Allocation

Electoral Integrity and Democracy Protection

Summary

Both acknowledge the tension between policy aspirations and practical enforceability, with John Evans noting the need to move quickly despite not having the luxury of gradual development like telecommunications regulation, while audience members raise concerns about implementability of policy recommendations.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Jurisdiction | Human rights

Similar viewpoints

Both recognize and emphasize Ireland’s transformation into a regulator that acts with strength and integrity, representing a significant departure from previous approaches to tech company oversight in Ireland.

Speakers

– John Evans
– Maria Farrell

Arguments

Ireland’s Regulatory Reputation and Independence

Ireland’s Regulatory Reputation and Independence

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights principles | Privacy and data protection

Both acknowledge the complexity of protecting democratic processes online and the challenges of implementing media privileges and content moderation policies, though they approach from different perspectives of implementation versus policy development.

Speakers

– John Evans
– Audience

Arguments

Electoral Integrity and Democracy Protection

Electoral Integrity and Democracy Protection

Topics

Sociocultural | Content policy | Human rights | Freedom of expression | Freedom of the press

Unexpected consensus

Ireland’s regulatory transformation and credibility

Speakers

– John Evans
– Maria Farrell

Arguments

Ireland’s Regulatory Reputation and Independence

Ireland’s Regulatory Reputation and Independence

Explanation

It’s unexpected to see such strong consensus between a regulator and an activist about the regulator’s performance. Maria Farrell’s explicit praise for the regulator’s strength and integrity, contrasted with criticism of other Irish regulatory bodies, suggests genuine recognition of effective regulatory action rather than typical regulatory capture or weakness.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights principles | Privacy and data protection

Urgency of regulatory action despite implementation challenges

Speakers

– John Evans
– Audience

Arguments

Regulatory Challenges and Resource Allocation

Electoral Integrity and Democracy Protection

Explanation

Despite acknowledging significant implementation challenges and resource constraints, there’s consensus that waiting for perfect solutions is not an option due to the severity of emerging harms. This represents agreement on the need for imperfect but immediate action over delayed comprehensive solutions.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights | Data governance

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion reveals strong consensus on the fundamental challenges facing digital regulation: resource constraints, implementation complexity, and the need for cross-border coordination. There’s also unexpected agreement on Ireland’s regulatory transformation and the urgency of action despite imperfect tools.

Consensus level

High level of consensus on challenges and approach, with constructive dialogue rather than adversarial positions. This suggests a mature understanding of regulatory realities and shared commitment to effective platform oversight, which bodes well for continued cooperation and development of regulatory frameworks.

Different viewpoints

Policy Development vs. Regulatory Implementation Gap

Speakers

– John Evans
– Audience

Arguments

Regulatory Challenges and Resource Allocation – The regulator uses a risk-based approach to prioritize enforcement efforts, considering factors like platform reach, user demographics, and past enforcement history. Unlike traditional regulatory sectors that had decades to develop, online safety regulation must move quickly due to the severity of emerging harms.

Electoral Integrity and Democracy Protection – There are concerns about the gap between policy recommendations and practical enforceability in digital regulation. Many policy discussions propose interventions that may not be legally or technically implementable, raising questions about whether regulatory expertise is adequately considered in policy development.

Summary

John Evans advocates for working within existing regulatory frameworks first and learning from implementation, while the audience member argues that policy development often proposes unenforceable interventions without adequate consideration of regulatory expertise and practical implementation challenges.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights | Freedom of the press

Unexpected differences

Regulatory Timeline and Urgency

Speakers

– John Evans
– Audience

Arguments

Regulatory Challenges and Resource Allocation – Unlike traditional regulatory sectors that had decades to develop, online safety regulation must move quickly due to the severity of emerging harms.

Electoral Integrity and Democracy Protection – There are concerns about the gap between policy recommendations and practical enforceability in digital regulation.

Explanation

While both parties acknowledge the urgency of digital regulation, they have opposing views on how to balance speed with effectiveness. Evans argues for rapid implementation despite imperfections, while the audience suggests that rushing may lead to unenforceable policies. This disagreement is unexpected because both parties want effective regulation but fundamentally differ on the risk-reward calculation of moving quickly versus ensuring implementability.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights | Jurisdiction

Overall assessment

Summary

The main areas of disagreement center on the balance between policy ambition and regulatory practicality, resource adequacy for the scale of platform oversight, and the effectiveness of current cross-border coordination mechanisms.

Disagreement level

Moderate disagreement with significant implications. While speakers share common goals of effective platform regulation and protection of democratic values, their different perspectives on implementation approaches could lead to tensions between policy development and regulatory execution. The disagreements suggest a need for better integration between policy-making and regulatory expertise to ensure that ambitious digital governance goals are matched with practical enforcement capabilities.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both recognize and emphasize Ireland’s transformation into a regulator that acts with strength and integrity, representing a significant departure from previous approaches to tech company oversight in Ireland.

Speakers

– John Evans
– Maria Farrell

Arguments

Ireland’s Regulatory Reputation and Independence

Ireland’s Regulatory Reputation and Independence

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights principles | Privacy and data protection

Both acknowledge the complexity of protecting democratic processes online and the challenges of implementing media privileges and content moderation policies, though they approach from different perspectives of implementation versus policy development.

Speakers

– John Evans
– Audience

Arguments

Electoral Integrity and Democracy Protection

Electoral Integrity and Democracy Protection

Topics

Sociocultural | Content policy | Human rights | Freedom of expression | Freedom of the press

Key takeaways

Ireland serves as a critical hub for European digital regulation, handling approximately 80% of complaints against online platforms due to many major tech companies being headquartered there

The Digital Services Act creates an effective network-based regulatory approach requiring coordination between member states and the European Commission, moving beyond failed self-regulatory models

Ireland has demonstrated serious commitment to digital regulation by expanding from 40 to over 200 staff members, with plans to reach 300, showing that adequate resourcing is possible when there is political will

A two-dimensional approach to child protection (addressing both content through safety codes and systems through the DSA) provides a comprehensive framework for protecting minors online

Electoral integrity requires coordinated cross-border regulatory response, with tools like election guidelines, candidate support packs, and pre-election scenario planning proving effective

Ireland’s media regulator has established a reputation for acting with strength and integrity, contrasting positively with other Irish regulators’ handling of tech companies

Risk-based prioritization considering platform reach, user demographics, and enforcement history across Europe is essential for effective resource allocation

The urgency of online harms means regulators cannot wait decades for frameworks to mature as was possible with telecommunications regulation

Resolutions and action items

Ireland will continue developing risk-based prioritization mechanisms to focus regulatory efforts more precisely on high-harm areas

Coordinated enforcement actions against adult sites below the 45 million user threshold will be pursued by Digital Services Coordinators across member states

Ireland plans to extend educational resources to primary age children and run cinema-based awareness campaigns for parents during summer

Research will be conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of candidate support packs provided during elections

The regulator committed to ongoing participation in international networks like the Global Online Safety Regulators Network to share best practices

Unresolved issues

How to effectively coordinate with member states that may have weak digital service coordinators or rule of law backsliding issues

The challenge of ensuring policy recommendations are actually enforceable and implementable from a legal/regulatory perspective

Implementation details for the new media privilege rules for journalistic content in platform content moderation, which platforms don’t yet know how to execute

Long-term sustainability of regulatory independence and integrity as political contexts change

Whether current regulatory frameworks will prove sufficient or if additional legislative measures will be needed as harms evolve

How to balance the need for quick action on severe harms with the time required for regulatory frameworks to mature and prove effective

Suggested compromises

Using existing Digital Services Act and Digital Markets Act frameworks as a first step while learning and developing new approaches, rather than waiting for perfect solutions

Leveraging the European Commission and Digital Services Board as protective mechanisms against potential regulatory capture or weakness in individual member states

Combining enforcement actions with educational initiatives and media literacy efforts rather than relying solely on punitive measures

Accepting that regulatory frameworks will need to evolve iteratively rather than expecting comprehensive solutions immediately, while still acting urgently on severe harms

How do you make your choices? Do you have enough resources? What is your policy on prioritising with the resources that you have given all the challenges that there are?

Speaker

Audience member (first questioner)

Reason

This question cuts to the heart of regulatory effectiveness by addressing the fundamental challenge of resource allocation in digital regulation. It acknowledges the enormous scope of the regulator’s mandate while recognizing the practical limitations that could undermine their effectiveness.

Impact

This question shifted the discussion from theoretical regulatory frameworks to practical implementation challenges. It prompted Evans to reveal concrete details about organizational growth (from 40 to 200+ people), resource allocation strategies, and the collaborative nature of European digital regulation. It also led him to discuss their risk-based prioritization approach, adding depth to understanding how modern digital regulation actually works in practice.

Very often in policy discussions there are calls for interventions that are maybe not necessarily enforceable… do you feel that you with your expertise and specific background knowledge on how complex these issues are that this is also taken up on the other side of the spectrum in the policy and regulatory development?

Speaker

OECD policy worker

Reason

This comment highlights a critical disconnect between policy aspirations and regulatory reality – the gap between what policymakers want to achieve and what regulators can actually enforce. It introduces the concept of implementability as a key constraint in digital governance.

Impact

This question prompted Evans to provide historical context about internet regulation evolution, explaining how the ‘hands-off’ approach gradually gave way to targeted legislation like the DSA and DMA. It led to a deeper discussion about the tension between the urgency of addressing digital harms and the time needed to develop mature regulatory frameworks, comparing it to the 25-year evolution of telecommunications regulation.

Amongst other digital and human rights activists around Europe, Coimisiún na Meán has already a reputation of acting with strength and integrity as a regulator, which has been completely lacking in our data protection regulator and how Ireland deals with tax and the tech cos… what are you doing and can you do to ensure that you continue to act with that strength, with that integrity, with that moral courage?

Speaker

Maria Farrell

Reason

This comment is particularly insightful because it directly addresses Ireland’s controversial reputation as a ‘regulatory haven’ for tech companies while acknowledging a positive counter-narrative. It raises the fundamental question of regulatory capture and independence in a jurisdiction where major tech companies are headquartered.

Impact

This comment created a moment of validation for the regulator while simultaneously challenging them to maintain their independence. It shifted the conversation toward questions of institutional integrity and political pressure. Evans’ response about having a ‘North Star’ strategy and political support revealed important insights about how regulatory independence can be maintained even in challenging political-economic contexts.

How would you relate as an Irish media commission to member states with perhaps the last strong digital service coordinator or making decisions that you do not agree with from a rule of law perspective?

Speaker

Audience member (final questioner)

Reason

This question introduces the complex geopolitical dimension of digital regulation within the EU, specifically addressing how democratic backsliding in some member states could affect the coordinated regulatory approach that the DSA depends upon. It highlights potential systemic vulnerabilities in the network-based regulatory model.

Impact

While Evans’ response was brief, this question opened up discussion of the safeguards built into the DSA framework, particularly the role of the European Commission and Digital Services Board in maintaining standards across member states. It highlighted the tension between national sovereignty in regulation and the need for consistent enforcement of digital rights across the EU.

Overall assessment

These key comments transformed what could have been a straightforward regulatory presentation into a nuanced exploration of the practical, political, and systemic challenges facing digital governance. The questions moved the discussion from describing regulatory frameworks to examining their real-world implementation challenges, resource constraints, political pressures, and systemic vulnerabilities. Maria Farrell’s comment was particularly impactful in acknowledging Ireland’s unique position and the regulator’s emerging reputation, while the OECD questioner’s focus on enforceability highlighted the gap between policy ambition and regulatory reality. Together, these interventions created a more honest and comprehensive picture of digital regulation as an evolving, resource-constrained, and politically complex endeavor rather than a purely technical exercise.

How effective was the candidate pack initiative in supporting politicians’ safe participation in public life during elections?

Speaker

John Evans

Explanation

John Evans mentioned they are conducting research to find out exactly how the candidate pack helped politicians when targeted online, indicating this is an ongoing area of investigation to measure impact and improve future initiatives

How will platforms implement Article 28 of the Digital Services Act regarding protection of minors’ safety, security and privacy?

Speaker

John Evans

Explanation

John Evans noted that guidance from the European Commission on implementing this article will emerge later in the year, suggesting this is an area requiring further clarification and research on practical implementation

How to approach the new media privileges rule for journalistic content on platform content moderation from a regulatory enforcement perspective?

Speaker

OECD audience member

Explanation

The audience member noted that platforms don’t know how to implement this rule yet and asked about the regulatory body’s preparedness, indicating this is an area requiring further research and policy development

How can policy discussions better integrate regulatory expertise to ensure proposed interventions are actually enforceable?

Speaker

OECD audience member

Explanation

The audience member raised concerns about policy calls for interventions that may not be legally or regulatorily enforceable, suggesting need for better interlinkage between policy development and regulatory expertise

How can regulators maintain strength and integrity in the face of changing political contexts while ensuring independent regulation?

Speaker

Maria Farrell

Explanation

This question addresses the critical challenge of maintaining regulatory independence and moral courage over time, which is essential for effective platform regulation

How should digital services coordinators handle situations involving member states with rule of law backsliding?

Speaker

Audience member

Explanation

This question addresses potential conflicts within the European regulatory network when some member states may have compromised rule of law standards, requiring research into governance mechanisms and accountability measures

What are the best practices and different regulatory approaches being tested globally for online safety regulation?

Speaker

John Evans

Explanation

John Evans mentioned the value of learning from other regulators like Australia’s eSafety Commission and Ofcom through the Global Online Safety Regulators Network, indicating ongoing research into comparative regulatory approaches

Summary

This discussion at the Internet Governance Forum focused on the security and resilience of subsea telecommunication cables, which carry over 99% of global intercontinental data traffic. The session was co-hosted by UNIDIR and the Norwegian government, bringing together ministers, industry experts, and international organizations to address growing threats to this critical infrastructure.

Ministers from Norway, Finland, Nigeria, and Estonia highlighted how recent incidents, particularly in the Baltic Sea, have demonstrated the vulnerability of subsea cables to both accidental damage and intentional sabotage. They emphasized that geopolitical tensions have significantly increased risks, with incidents involving Russia’s shadow fleet cutting cables in European waters. The speakers stressed that protecting subsea cables requires comprehensive international cooperation, as these systems cross national borders and operate in international waters.

Industry representatives shared practical experiences, including a detailed account of a cable cut between Latvia and Sweden that took 28 days to repair despite good preparation. They discussed emerging technologies like distributed acoustic sensing (DAS) that can detect threats up to two kilometers away and provide real-time monitoring of underwater activities. The panelists emphasized that fiber optic cables can essentially function as massive underwater sensor networks.

Key themes throughout the discussion included the importance of public-private partnerships, the need for redundancy and route diversity, and the critical role of preparedness and crisis management planning. Speakers highlighted initiatives like the ITU’s International Advisory Body for Submarine Cable Resilience and regional cooperation agreements in the North Sea and Baltic Sea. The discussion concluded that strengthening subsea cable resilience is a “team sport” requiring coordinated efforts across governments, industry, and international organizations, with resilience built by design rather than as an afterthought.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Critical Infrastructure Vulnerability**: Subsea telecommunication cables carry over 99% of global intercontinental data traffic, making them essential digital lifelines that remain largely “out of sight and out of mind” despite their critical importance to the global digital economy, healthcare, education, and financial systems.

– **Evolving Threat Landscape**: The security environment has fundamentally changed, with incidents in the Baltic Sea, North Sea, and other regions showing a dramatic increase in both accidental and intentional damage to cables, including activities by “shadow fleets” and state-backed interference amid growing geopolitical tensions.

– **Multi-stakeholder Cooperation as Essential**: Effective protection requires coordinated efforts between governments, private industry, international organizations, and civil society, with emphasis on public-private partnerships, regional cooperation agreements (like those in the North Sea and Baltic Sea), and international bodies like the ITU Advisory Body for Submarine Cable Resilience.

– **Resilience by Design, Not Response**: Protection must be intentional and built into systems from the planning stage, incorporating redundancy, route diversity, advanced monitoring technologies (like distributed acoustic sensing), rapid repair capabilities, and comprehensive preparedness including crisis management protocols and regular exercises.

– **Regulatory and Legal Framework Gaps**: There’s a need for updated international cooperation mechanisms, streamlined permitting processes for repairs, clarification of roles between civil and defense authorities, and better implementation of existing legal tools under international law rather than creating entirely new regulatory structures.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to raise awareness about the critical vulnerability of subsea cable infrastructure and foster international cooperation to strengthen protection and resilience measures. The session sought to move beyond mere conversation to serve as “a call for governments, industry, and the wider multi-stakeholder community to come together and exchange best practices, strengthen cooperation, and build resilience.”

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a consistently serious and urgent tone throughout, reflecting the critical nature of the infrastructure being discussed. Speakers emphasized that “the risks are no longer hypothetical” and stressed the need for immediate action. While collaborative and constructive, there was an underlying sense of urgency driven by recent incidents and the recognition that current threats are both increasing and evolving. The tone remained professional and solution-oriented, with participants sharing concrete experiences and actionable recommendations rather than engaging in abstract theoretical discussions.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Giacomo Persi Paoli** – Head of the Security and Technology Program at the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR), session moderator and co-host

– **Karianne Tung** – Minister of Digitalisation and Public Governance of Norway

– **Jarno Syrjala** – Under-Secretary of State for International Trade, Finland

– **Bosun Tijani** – Minister of Communications, Innovation and Digital Economy of Nigeria, co-chair of the ITU International Advisory Body for Submarine Cable Resilience

– **Liisa-Ly Pakosta** – Minister of Justice and Digital Affairs of Estonia

– **Camino Kavanagh** – Expert and research fellow from UNIDIR

– **Steinar Bjornstad** – Strategic competence and research manager at TAMPNET (offshore telecom service provider)

– **Evijs Taube** – Member of the management board from Latvia State Radio and Television Center

– **Sandra Maximiano** – Chair of the board of directors of ANACOM (National Regulatory Authority for Communications in Portugal), co-chair of the ITU International Advisory Body for Submarine Cable Resilience

– **Kent Bressie** – Legal advisor for International Cable Protection Committee (ICPC), participating remotely

– **Session video** – Video content/narrator (not a human speaker)

**Additional speakers:**

None identified beyond the provided speakers names list.

# Comprehensive Report: Strengthening the Security and Resilience of Subsea Telecommunication Cables

## Executive Summary

This Internet Governance Forum session, co-hosted by the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR) and the Norwegian government, brought together ministers, industry experts, and international organisations to address the critical vulnerability of subsea telecommunication cables. The discussion emphasised that these cables, which carry over 99% of global intercontinental data traffic, represent essential digital lifelines that remain largely “out of sight and out of mind” despite their fundamental importance to modern society.

The session established a four-pillar framework for cable resilience: protection, planning, preparedness, and response. Speakers emphasised that “the risks are no longer hypothetical” and stressed the need for immediate action, driven by recent incidents and the recognition that current threats are both increasing and evolving. Key outcomes included the establishment of ITU Advisory Body working groups for 2025-26, regional cooperation agreements in the North Sea and Baltic Sea, and concrete national commitments to enhanced protection frameworks.

The discussion remained professional and solution-oriented, with participants sharing concrete experiences and actionable recommendations, ultimately concluding that cable protection is fundamentally “a team sport” requiring coordinated efforts across governments, industry, and international organisations.

## Critical Infrastructure Vulnerability and Societal Dependence

The discussion began with a stark assessment of society’s complete dependence on subsea cables. Giacomo Persi Paoli, Head of the Security and Technology Program at UNIDIR and session moderator, established that subsea cables carry over 99% of global intercontinental data traffic, making them critical digital infrastructure that underpins the global economy.

Karianne Tung, Norway’s Minister of Digitalisation and Public Governance, emphasised that digital society is completely dependent on submarine cables for healthcare, education, and transport systems. This dependency was further illustrated by Liisa-Ly Pakosta, Estonia’s Minister of Justice and Digital Affairs, who explained that as a fully digital state, Estonia faces actual threats to government services when cables are cut.

The human impact of cable failures was powerfully articulated by Bosun Tijani, Nigeria’s Minister of Communications, Innovation and Digital Economy, who shared his personal experience during West African cable cuts last year in March: “I was surprised at how, of course, we were fortunate, the private sector came together. But as a minister, I didn’t have any answer to give to people. And people don’t often complain about companies when you have natural disasters. It’s the government that they look to for answer.” This comment fundamentally reframed the discussion from technical protection measures to governance accountability, highlighting how governments are held accountable for infrastructure failures regardless of ownership structures.

## Evolving Threat Landscape and Geopolitical Context

The discussion revealed a fundamental shift in the security environment surrounding subsea cables. Tung highlighted recent incidents with damages to subsea cables in the Baltic Sea and Red Sea, demonstrating increased vulnerability in critical maritime regions. This assessment was reinforced by Pakosta, who provided stark geopolitical context: “Let us remember that it was 1884 when the Paris Convention of Undersea Telegraphic Cables was agreed… So this is actually the situation where we are just now, as well, within the broader geopolitical situation. What we see around this area… that the Russian shadow fleet is cutting down our connections.”

Pakosta noted a dramatic rise in “accidents” during the full-scale war in Ukraine, with intentional cable cutting by Russian shadow fleet vessels, connecting current geopolitical tensions to a 140-year pattern of intentional cable disruption during conflicts.

Camino Kavanagh, an expert and research fellow from UNIDIR, provided crucial empirical context with historical data analysis. She referenced how in 1881, a group of countries concerned about damage to cables in the North Sea raised the issue in pre-negotiations to the 1884 Convention, and in 1882, a specific government brought statistics showing “60% of damage caused by natural events, 35% by unintentional acts due to accidents at sea or force majeure, and 5% due to gross negligence and some malign activities.” Moving forward 143 years later, she noted that whilst these statistics haven’t changed dramatically, intentional threats are increasing, though it remains “very hard to ascertain responsibility for some of the incidents.”

Jarno Syrjala, Finland’s Under-Secretary of State for International Trade, emphasised that geopolitical tensions have fundamentally changed the security environment with significant implications for digital infrastructure safety. He stressed the need for urgency in developing innovative technological solutions, noting that different regions experience vastly different threat landscapes and problem sets.

## Multi-Stakeholder Cooperation and Governance

A central theme throughout the discussion was the absolute necessity of international cooperation and public-private partnerships for effective subsea cable protection. Tung articulated this clearly: “Cross-border cooperation is crucial since submarine cables cross national borders and international waters.” She provided concrete examples of successful regional cooperation, including North Sea cooperation agreements from 2024 and Baltic Sea cooperation agreements established in May 2025 with Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Sweden, the EU, and Norway for protection of critical subsea infrastructure.

Syrjala reinforced this theme, explaining how international cooperation through NATO, the European Union, and the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) helps build resilience and response capabilities. He advocated for the multi-stakeholder community to have a more prominent role in submarine cable resilience discussions, emphasising that solid public-private partnership represents one of the most important aspects of telecommunications resilience.

Sandra Maximiano, co-chair of the ITU International Advisory Body for Submarine Cable Resilience and Chair of the board of directors of ANACOM (Portugal’s National Regulatory Authority for Communications), highlighted how the ITU Advisory Body provides a global platform for collaboration between public and private sectors. She noted that the body, co-chaired with Bosun Tijani, has established three working groups for 2025-26 focusing on resilience by design, timely deployment and repair, and risk identification and monitoring.

Kent Bressie, legal advisor for the International Cable Protection Committee (ICPC) participating remotely, provided industry perspective on this cooperation. He noted that the ICPC, founded in 1958 with more than 240 members from approximately 75 countries, emphasises the “need for better awareness and communication between submarine cable operators, marine industries, and governments. Governments need to understand what industry does and recognise actions only governments can take.”

This theme of complementary capabilities was reinforced throughout the discussion, with speakers acknowledging that whilst private industry owns and operates most cables, only governments can take certain political and military responses to threats. The challenge lies in creating effective coordination mechanisms that leverage both sectors’ strengths whilst maintaining clear accountability structures.

## Technical Innovation and Resilience by Design

The discussion highlighted significant technological advances in cable monitoring and threat detection alongside the fundamental principle of building resilience into systems from the beginning. Steinar Bjornstad, Strategic competence and research manager at TAMPNET (an offshore telecom service provider), explained how fiber sensing technology allows cables to work as underwater microphones, detecting approaching threats: “Combining multiple monitoring tools including AIS information and fiber sensing provides comprehensive situational awareness.”

The technological capability was further elaborated through distributed acoustic sensing, which turns fiber optic cables into virtual hydrophones for ocean monitoring. Light pulses are injected into fiber cables, and backscattered light reveals acoustic pressure fields, essentially making “the ocean transparent” for monitoring purposes. The technology can detect threats like two kilometers away and provide real-time monitoring of underwater activities.

Evijs Taube, a member of the management board from Latvia State Radio and Television Center, introduced a paradigm shift in thinking about cables: “Every cable, existing cable is a big asset, and we can call it a big sensor. If we install… distributed or centralised… integrated system of such sensors in a particular area, for example, Baltic Sea… that would give a big benefit, not only protecting the cables, but to understand what is going on under the water.”

This comment transformed the discussion from viewing cables as passive infrastructure requiring protection to active sensing networks that could provide comprehensive underwater surveillance, turning the infrastructure itself into a security solution.

A fundamental principle that emerged was “resilience by design.” Tijani articulated this powerfully: “Resilience should be intentional. It shouldn’t be something that is afterthought.” This philosophy emphasised that protection must be built into systems from the planning stage rather than added reactively.

Bjornstad explained how multiple cables and optical switching enable quick traffic rerouting when cables fail, demonstrating the importance of redundancy in system design. Maximiano reinforced this by advocating for building redundancy through multiple geographically diverse cable routes and avoiding strategic choke points. Tijani emphasised that countries need multiple access points to cables rather than single cable connections, noting that resilience requires calculated investment in infrastructure diversity.

## Response Preparedness and Crisis Management

The practical challenges of cable repair and crisis response emerged as critical concerns throughout the discussion. Bjornstad explained that repair alliance membership ensures cable repair within a couple of weeks when incidents occur, but this requires significant advance preparation and investment.

Taube provided a detailed case study of a successful repair between Latvia and Sweden, explaining: “we tried three times to recover, the third time was successful, and despite of February being a short month, we managed to fix it within a month, so 28 days.” This demonstrated the importance of preparation, spare parts, and standby vessel agreements, while highlighting that even with good preparation, repairs can take nearly a month, creating extended vulnerability periods.

Effective crisis management emerged as a crucial component requiring clear crisis management teams, communication channels with partners, and public communication strategies. Taube emphasised the importance of established communication lines with international partners and 24/7 contact protocols, noting that preparation through table exercises and drills is essential, though real incidents provide irreplaceable learning experiences.

Maximiano identified the need for collective mechanisms to support repair capacity, especially for regions lacking resources. She noted that small island states and remote regions need special attention where economic incentives for response are lower. The discussion revealed that limited repair ships and talent for cable maintenance require calculated investment and regional cooperation.

Tijani highlighted the workforce development challenges, noting difficulties in attracting young talent to the submarine cable industry. This human resource challenge compounds the technical and logistical difficulties of maintaining adequate repair capacity globally.

## Regulatory Framework Challenges and Best Practices

The regulatory dimension of cable protection revealed several complex challenges. Bressie presented ICPC best practices advocating a holistic approach including default separation distances and single government contact points. However, he also warned that government policies can potentially undermine cable protection through excessive delays and clustering requirements.

A particularly striking example of counterintuitive regulation was Bressie’s observation about cable location transparency: “We see a renewed push by some governments to remove cables from nautical charts. This is woefully misguided. Given that approximately 70 percent of cable damage each year is caused by fishing and anchors, removing cables from nautical charts would significantly increase those risks and make it impossible for cable owners to pursue damages claims.”

This comment challenged security-through-obscurity thinking, demonstrating how transparency actually enhances protection by enabling avoidance of accidental damage. It highlighted the need for evidence-based security measures rather than intuitive but potentially counterproductive approaches.

Maximiano noted that regulation needs to keep pace with technological innovation and high-capacity connectivity demands, particularly as artificial intelligence applications require massive computational capacity that depends on robust cable infrastructure. Syrjala noted that Finland had already transposed the NIS2 directive into national law in April 2025 with comprehensive telecommunications resilience requirements.

## Implementation and Future Challenges

The discussion produced several concrete commitments and initiatives. The ITU Advisory Body for Submarine Cable Resilience established three working groups for 2025-26 focusing on resilience by design, timely deployment and repair, and risk identification and monitoring. The Abuja Declaration was approved in February 2025 as a milestone for international cooperation on submarine cable resilience.

Multiple countries committed to implementing the EU Action Plan on Cable Security with four objectives: prevention, detection, response and repair, and deterrence. Several nations signed the New York Declaration on Submarine Cable Security to promote integrity and accessibility.

At the national level, Norway committed to establishing dedicated cooperation between private sector and civil/defence authorities with clarified roles and responsibilities. Nigeria announced plans to set up a dedicated desk within its communications commission for cable protection protocols and international coordination.

Despite these concrete commitments, several significant challenges remain unresolved. Limited repair capacity globally, particularly the shortage of specialised vessels and trained personnel for cable maintenance, represents a critical vulnerability that requires sustained investment and international coordination.

Many developing countries and small island states continue to lack adequate frameworks and expertise for cable protection, creating global vulnerabilities that could affect international connectivity. The economic incentives for prompt response mechanisms in remote regions remain insufficient, requiring innovative financing and cooperation mechanisms.

Technical challenges include the ongoing debate over removing cables from nautical charts, difficulties in attributing responsibility for cable incidents, and regulatory delays that can undermine protection efforts. The workforce development challenge of attracting young talent to the submarine cable industry requires sustained attention from both industry and educational institutions.

## Conclusion and Strategic Implications

The discussion concluded with Giacomo Persi Paoli’s synthesis that strengthening subsea cable resilience is fundamentally “a team sport” requiring coordinated efforts across governments, industry, and international organisations. He emphasised his four-pillar framework of protection, planning, preparedness, and response, noting that “plans are useless unless they are put in practice through concrete measures of preparedness” and stressing the need for “effective, quick response to minimize disruption.”

The session successfully moved beyond abstract discussions to concrete commitments and actionable frameworks, though significant implementation challenges remain. The strong consensus among participants suggests that the subsea cable protection community has developed mature understanding of the challenges and potential solutions.

The session’s emphasis on resilience by design, international cooperation, and public-private partnerships provides a solid foundation for addressing the evolving threats to this critical infrastructure. The combination of historical perspective, current geopolitical realities, and future technological possibilities creates a comprehensive framework for action.

Ultimately, the discussion reinforced that protecting subsea cables is not merely a technical challenge but a fundamental requirement for maintaining global digital connectivity, economic stability, and societal resilience in an increasingly interconnected world. The urgency expressed by all participants reflects the recognition that the time for preparation and action is now, before more serious incidents test the limits of current protection capabilities.

Giacomo Persi Paoli: Excellencies, distinguished delegates, colleagues, ladies and gentlemen, good morning and a warm welcome to this session, whether you’re following us here in the room or online. We’re here today to discuss a topic that is both critical and too often overlooked, the security and resilience of subsea telecommunication cables. This hidden infrastructure carries over 99% of global intercontinental data, silently underpinning every facet of our digital world that we rely on. Yet, despite of their criticality, they remain largely out of sight and too often out of mind. My name is Giacomo Persi-Paoli. I’m the head of the security and technology program at the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research, UNIDIR, and it is an honor to co-host this session in partnership with the government of Norway as part of this year’s Internet Governance Forum. Recent incidents, whether accidental or deliberate, have underscored how vulnerable these lifelines, these digital lifelines truly are. The growing intersection of geopolitical tensions, malicious cyber capabilities, and infrastructure fragility highlights a stark reality. The risks are no longer hypothetical. They’re here and they’re multiplying. This is why this session aspires to be more than a conversation. It aspires to serve as a call for governments, industry, and the wider multi-stakeholder community to come together and exchange best practices, strengthen cooperation, and build resilience into one of the most vital components of the global digital ecosystem. This session will unfold in two parts. We will begin with a high-level ministerial dialogue offering national perspectives on how countries are approaching the protection of subsea cables. Following that, we will turn to a multi-stakeholder panel of experts who will reflect on the evolving threat landscape and share actionable insights on how to secure subsea cable infrastructure. We are privileged to be joined by an exceptional group of leaders and practitioners from across sectors and regions. Their experience and ideas are vital as we chart a path forward, one that reflects both the complexity of today’s challenges and the spirit of international cooperation that forums like IGF are designed to inspire. And now, without further ado, I have the honour of inviting here on stage Minister Karianne Tung, Minister of Digitalisation and Public Governance of Norway, Jarno Syrjala, Under-Secretary of State for International Trade in Finland, Bosun Tijani, Minister of Communications, Innovation and Digital Economy of Nigeria, and Liisa-Ly Pakosta, Minister of Justice and Digital Affairs of Estonia. Please join me in a round of applause in welcoming them on stage. Thank you once again for taking the time to join us to discuss this very important And I would like to start with you, Minister Tung, and give you the floor and the opportunity to introduce the topic. Please.

Karianne Tung: Thank you, moderator. Good morning, everyone. It is a pleasure to be here together with you for this important session on the protection of subsea telecommunication cables, and thank you once again for being here. The underwater cables make up the foundation of the global internet infrastructure, enabling people, communities and businesses to communicate, share and innovate. The recent years’ incidents with damages to subsea infrastructure have reminded us how important it is to increase the resilience of this critical infrastructure. We’ve seen the incident with the North Stream Pipeline damages to subsea cables in the Baltic Sea and in the Red Sea, and once again we see war raging on European soil. As more than 99% of the intercontinental data traffic is carried by subsea communication cables have raised the awareness that we must better protect this critical infrastructure. Norway has intensified our efforts to increase the security of subsea cables. We are conducting service of subsea cables for detection and prevention of threats. We make use of innovative technologies to monitor the subsea cables, enable detection of threats and incidents, and quick notification and intervention. We are also establishing a close cooperation between the private sector and the civil and defence authorities. This way we can combine and maximise the knowledge and strength of the civil and private sector and the defence sector in this important work. We have seen the importance of clarifying the roles and responsibilities of owners of subsea cables, civil authorities and the defence sector. This experience from the Baltic Sea has shown us that such clarifications are needed for swift action when incidents occur. occur. But there’s no escaping that submarine cable infrastructure often go across both national borders and international waters. Therefore, it is crucial with both European and international cooperation to identify and implement effective security measures and the necessary regulatory framework. One good example of such cooperation was established in 2024 for the protection of critical subsea infrastructure in the North Sea between the North Sea countries, Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany, the UK, Denmark, and Norway. In May 2025, a similar cooperation was agreed on for protection of critical subsea infrastructure in the Baltic Sea with Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Sweden, EU, and Norway. We need a combination of national, regional, and international cooperation to achieve effective resilience measures and the necessary exchange of information about threats and sharing of best practice. Threats to subsea communication cables are not limited by national borders, so international cooperation is vital for protection of subsea cables, and together we can better advance new and innovative ways of securing these critical cables that the Internet is fully depending on. Thank you.

Giacomo Persi Paoli: Thank you very much, Minister Tang, for sharing these opening remarks and also for highlighting among other things the importance of cooperation, both between states and governments, but also public-private cooperation as a key enabler for the protection of subsea cables. And now I’d like to give the floor to Jarno Syrjala, Under-Secretary of State for International Trade, Finland, please.

Jarno Syrjala: Thank you, and good morning, ladies and gentlemen. It’s great to be here, and it’s my great pleasure to provide some remarks. on behalf of the government of Finland on protection of subsea telecommunications cables. The fundamental change in our security environment has implications for safety and resilience of our critical digital infrastructure. As recent incidents at the Baltic Sea have demonstrated, we have a clear need to better protect our critical undersea infrastructure. Trust in the digital systems is necessary for sustainable, inclusive digital future. The security of data and digital infrastructure are key concerns for countries from both national security and an economic standpoint. The security of digital systems and data increases trust, and trust adds to investments, welfare and prosperity. Combining the current threat landscape and our resilience, Finland has a long history of preparedness in all areas of life, including the telecommunications sector. For example, resilience requirements for public communications networks were deemed necessary several decades ago, and have been developed over time as technologies and usage needs have changed. Comprehensive telecommunications legislation and extensive resilience requirements, covering also submarine cables, have been implemented in Finland’s national telecommunications legislation. The NIS2 directive, focused on enhancing cybersecurity across the EU, was also transposed into national law in April 2025. One of the most important aspects of the NIS2 directive is the importance of the use of of the telecommunications resilience is a solid public-private partnership. Over the years, close cooperation between public authorities and private companies has been established in Finland. I would like to also underline the importance of international cooperation on the security and resilience of submarine cables. International cross-border cooperation plays an important role, for example in terms of supervision, building new capabilities and preventing disruptions. We encourage also other actors to engage in the international cooperation and partnership building on submarine cable resilience, including the multi-stakeholder community. NATO and EU have increased their resilience, response and deterrence, which help us protect against all incidents, intentional or unintentional. Most recent example of this practical cooperation to protect critical undersea infrastructure, including submarine cables, is the recent Memorandum of Understanding, which the Baltic Sea, NATO Allies and the EU have published in May 2025. Within International Telecommunications Union, ITU, we have endorsed the International Advisory Body Declaration on Submarine Cable Resilience, adopted in February 2025, and look forward to engaging in the working groups. Pleased to see the co-chair of the advisory body, Honorable Minister Tijani, taking an active role on these issues. In addition, the EU Action Plan on Cable Security defines four objectives. to address the challenges in the field of submarine cable resilience and security prevention, detection, response and repair, and deterrence. Finland endorses the actions and objectives defined in the action plan and is committed to them. Also, we are co-signatories of the New York Declaration on Submarine Cable Security. The Declaration aims to encourage countries to promote the integrity, security and accessibility of the submarine cable infrastructure, which is important for the digital economy and a prerequisite for the trusted connectivity. To conclude, our societies are increasingly dependent on reliable and secure digital connections that ensure free flow of information and support growth in the digital economy. Securing critical infrastructure is of primary importance for Finland. This is why we will intensify cooperation with like-minded countries and actors to strengthen the security of submarine cables. A lot of focus has been placed on using new technologies in protecting critical undersea infrastructure. We need a sense of urgency on this. We need to develop well-working mechanisms that are innovative and willing to experiment. With regard to submarine cables, we underline three areas with resilience as a priority. Adequacy of repair capacity, material preparation, as well as infrastructure monitoring and sensing capabilities. The momentum on submarine cable security is right now. It is important to enhance international cooperation on this. this topic. The multi-stakeholder community should also have a more prominent role in discussions on submarine cable resilience. And I’m grateful for our Norwegian colleagues to place more attention to this topic. Thank you.

Giacomo Persi Paoli: Thank you very much, Under-Secretary Siriala, for your remarks. For, again, stressing the importance of cooperation, both between states and within the multi-stakeholder community, but also for bringing to light the importance of trust and security as vehicles towards the resilience of digital information infrastructure. I’d like now to give the floor to Bosun Tijani, Minister of Communications, Innovation and Digital Economy of Nigeria.

Bosun Tijani: Please. Thank you so much for the opportunity, and good morning, everyone. It’s a privilege to, of course, be on this stage to contribute to this important conversation. One that is important, not just because, of course, we all know that digital economy is now literally the backbone of every economy in the world, but the fact that, you know, submarine cables are not just technical assets. These are literally the most important critical infrastructure that we can think of in the world today. And I think when you compare it to many other critical infrastructure, I don’t think attention is being given enough to actually how we protect it. And while we may be seeing more attention, I think we have to call out, in particular, the International Telecommunications Union, the ICPC, for the work they’ve done, but also the renewed focus on mobilizing actors and partnerships and collaboration to drive stronger attention on this cable. When you look at countries all over the world, and I can speak to Nigeria and, of course, a lot of other African countries, a lot of the long-edge challenges that we face, we’re seeing communications technologies as being one of the fastest ways. in which we can address so many of these challenges, whether you talk about quality education or being able to provide healthcare to literally everyone on our continent and in our countries. We see the role that digital technologies, connected technologies can actually play. We’ve seen the role of connected technologies in financial inclusion, for instance, which has changed the landscape significantly. I think the most popular ones would be what you have in M-PESA in East Africa. How many people we’ve been able to now bring into the financial system because we have connected technologies. It’s the same in my country as well, where financial technology solutions are now changing how we do things. And all these solutions will not be possible without the internet. I think the introductory remarks mentioned that 99% of the traffic that is actually carried on the internet is on subsea cables. So we can actually see why this is not just a technical asset. It is an important asset that not only do we need to protect it, we also need to worry more about the broader resilience of this cable. Which is why as a country we’re extremely excited to be participating in the international advisory body that ITU has put together. And this advisory body for us is not just another talk shop or opportunity to gather. It’s not one where we’re just talking about how do we come up with more laws to protect. But how do we also deploy for timely repair? Because sometimes the damages to the cable are not intentional. Natural disaster may also cause the destruction of these cables. How do we ensure that nations can timely come to the point where they can fix this cable? Because just a day or two or three of some of these cables being down can cause significant problems for economies. That’s why we’re extremely excited to be part of it. The second thing that the advisory body, it’s about that we find extremely useful is also how do we ensure that we can mobilize people to think more of the protocols around, and building of frameworks to improve the resilience around, which means in some countries you have only one cable, and we have opportunity for countries to be connected to more than one cable, right? This is also part of the framework that can improve the resilience within any country. In many countries you have these cables, of course these cables are not cables that you deal with in silos. We have about eight subsea cables in Nigeria, nearly all of them. I think all of them actually came through Portugal, and while coming through Portugal they passed through so many other countries. So this is something that you have to do in collaboration with so many countries. So we’re working on not just the repair, we’re working also on ensuring that we can increase the resilience by ensuring countries have multiple access to it. We’re also working on the diversity, is there a need to even have more of these cables in the first place? Not just the ones we have, do we need to have more of the cables? From that advisory body as a country, we’re now being inspired to set up a dedicated desk within our communications commission that is responsible for ensuring that the protocol within country is clear, but the clarity within country is also then translated to neighboring countries and partner countries, because you can’t do this in silo. And that’s one thing we extremely enjoy. The second thing is also the talent and the resources to be able to make these repairs when they happen. We’ve seen on the African continent a limited amount of ships that can quickly go and be deployed to help with the fixing, and there’s a limit to how much investment you can throw at it, because it’s not something that happens all the time as well. So it has to be an extremely calculated investment. What’s the optimal way to do it? This is something we’re thinking of. Another is talent. There’s a need for talent, ubiquitous talent that can actually also support, whether it’s in the maintenance or the repair of subsea cable. That’s also something that Nigeria is also prioritizing as well. And by extension to subsea cable, we’re then asking difficult questions even around fiber optic network as well. Because that’s what take the advantage of subsea cable to the people, and we need to think about when we’re thinking the sustainability and resilience, we’re now saying can we be thinking of these things in conjunction, not just one in isolation, because one feeds into the other. So we’re extremely happy to be part of this, and I think it’s something we’ll urge other partners to take seriously, that we don’t just look at loss only to protect them, but we also look at how do we make them a lot more resilient as well.

Giacomo Persi Paoli: Thank you, Minister Tijani, for also highlighting how resilience is not just about protection, as you just mentioned. There are many other components that is definitely the part of securing to protection, but there is also a very strong component that relates to redundancy, relates to mitigating and be able to react when incidents do occur. And also thank you for highlighting how the work conducted under the ITU is helping driving change at the national and regional level, and being a representative of the UN, that’s ultimately our best hope, is that through the work of these multilateral bodies, we can actually impact and drive change at the national and regional level. So thank you for sharing your remarks. And last, but of course not least, I would like to give the floor now to Liisa-Ly Pakosta, the Minister of Justice and Digital Affairs of Estonia. Please.

Liisa-Ly Pakosta: Thank you so much, and thank you for having me here. It’s a great honor for Estonia to participate here. So I have in a way a possibility to summarize why we are talking about this topic now. It is the situation that has changed, at least around this region where we physically are now. Let us remember that it was 1884. when the Paris Convention of Undersea Telegraphic Cables was agreed. And this was already then, because if the good countries established the undersea connections, there were, at the next moment, the bad guys who wanted to cut it down. So this is actually the situation where we are just now, as well, within the broader geopolitical situation. What we see around this area, where we are physically now, that the Russian shadow fleet is cutting down our connections. And it has been underlined several times already here, how important these connections are for our people, for our security, for our economies, for our hospitals, for our transport, name only. Estonia is a fully digital state, so all our government services are digital. Attacked by cutting down the undersea communication cables is actually not only a hybrid threat to our country, but it is a very actual threat to our country’s services to be actually there for our citizens. So we have seen a dramatic rise of accidents, so-called accidents, during the full-scale war in Ukraine. And I fully agree with my colleague, some of the incidents beforehand have been unintentional. But what we see now is that we see definitely the intentional cut down of the undersea cables. And the only way to handle this is, I will put it very short, that the good guys from like-minded countries, from like-minded organizations work together against, to stop the bad guys who want to take down the security of our people, who want to take down our hospital services, economy, transport, heating system, name only. So this is the actual question we are discussing now. What we can do together in order to beat the bad guys who want to harm us.

Giacomo Persi Paoli: Thank you, Minister Pakosta, for sharing your perspective. And Estonia, in fact, has been a champion of driving digital transformation for many years. So thank you so much for sharing your perspective. We still have a couple of minutes before we wrap up this first part of the panel. So I want to give all of you the opportunity, if you wanted to add anything to your remarks or to react to anything you have heard from your colleagues, this would be a good moment. We do have a couple of minutes left. Please.

Karianne Tung: Thank you, moderator. I think the panel has shown that we are completely dependent on the submarine cables. Our society, our digital society, for health care services, education, transport system and so forth. So being able to work together, both multilateral, but also multistakeholder, since many of these cables also are non-governmental and so forth. It’s important to bring the different actors together and to discuss how we can make them more resilient so that we keep connected both to society, but also internationally.

Giacomo Persi Paoli: Thank you. Please.

Bosun Tijani: I think the point I would love to add is that building resiliency into subsea cable shouldn’t be half to thought. I think for a long time this is a cable that we’ve dumped there and we’ve concluded that the risk to them is not severe. And as we’re saying, both intentional and unintentional risk to them will become severe. And because of their critical nature, I think resilience should be intentional. It shouldn’t be something that is afterthought. And what got me extremely passionate about this as a minister was when the cable cuts in the West African region happened last year, in March, and I saw firsthand the impact on society. Because we’re all working daily to move literally everything online. And if we’re moving everything online, if the backbone to this is at risk, it is a big challenge. And I was surprised at how, of course, we were fortunate, the private sector, because a lot of these cables are owned by private companies, the private sector came together. But as a minister, I didn’t have any answer to give to people. And people don’t often complain about companies when you have natural disasters. It’s the government that they look to for answer. And that’s why I think the work of the advisory board, the fact that ITU is prioritizing this, is extremely important. I don’t think it’s something we should push away. Some countries, some regions have the expertise, the framework, the know-how to be able to address this. You’d be surprised at how many countries and regions in the world have no clue where to start from. So even having things like regional redundancy and protocol, I think is something we should mainstream more. We saw the minister talked about the one in the Baltic region, but there are so many other parts of the world without this understanding. So we should collaborate more, share more, and ensure that collectively we can actually protect this critical infrastructure. Thank you.

Giacomo Persi Paoli: Please.

Liisa-Ly Pakosta: Thank you. Thank you very much for underlining this, because this is absolutely essential. We know sea as for ages connecting the whole world, not just regions. That is the fantastic part of sea. And also not only the ferries, but also the undersea cables. that we now know as technological possibility. And this is nothing we can do alone to protect them. So, I think Norway has put it very well and very timely, this topic here on the agenda, because really it is a global issue. Although we have some local issues, but in general what we need is a very clear universal set of rules to protect our citizens in all the continents. That is absolutely what we need.

Giacomo Persi Paoli: Thank you. Please.

Jarno Syrjala: Yeah, I think it’s very easy to echo what has been said about the international cooperation and the meaning of that, because we definitely are in a different kind of situations and there are different lessons there to be shared. And of course, I mean, when we talk about telecommunications or communication cables in general, so that’s only part of the issues, what is there lying beneath the waves. And in Finland, so we have for a long time, decades already, we have applied this kind of model of comprehensive security. So, these are also things that you have to connect to the other areas. So, how to keep the society keeping during a time of peace or during a time of crisis, but you have to have a holistic understanding of what is it all about.

Giacomo Persi Paoli: Thank you very much. As the screens in front of us are suggesting, we have come up to time for this first part of the panel. I would like to sincerely thank you for taking the time to share your experience and expertise with us, with the audience here in the room and online. And I do invite our audience to join me in a round of applause for Minister Tung, Under-Secretary Siriala, Minister Tijani and Minister Pakosta. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you so much. As we reconfigure the stage for the next part of the panel, I do invite you to watch a very interesting video on a specific application of a subsea cable technology, distributed acoustic sensing, and in the meantime we’ll prepare for the continuation of the panel. So over to the screen.

Session video: We can turn the ocean transparent and monitor whales by using distributed acoustic sensing. We have a network of fiber optic cables covering the world. Distributed acoustic sensing works by turning these cables into very long lines of virtual hydrophones. To record this data, one injects light pulses into a fiber cable. Some light is scattered back from impurities in the fiber and can be received by a DAS interrogator. Acoustic sources, such as whales, radiate oscillating pressure fields that stretch and compress the fiber. Variations in backscattered light tell us about the acoustic pressure fields at different points along the cable. This means that we can listen to the ocean at many separate points, creating tens of thousands of virtual hydrophones. This data is available immediately ashore at the end of the cable. Distributed acoustic sensing can revolutionize the way we understand and listen to the ocean, but we can go further than that. We can understand mechanisms of earthquakes, risks of landslides, avalanches, floods. For the ocean, we already have more than 1 million kilometers of fiber optic cables. What if we can use this as a global monitoring system?

Giacomo Persi Paoli: I’m now very happy to introduce the next set of speakers on stage. This distinguished panel of experts comprising representatives from government, industry, academia, and civil society will really help us unpack different perspectives on the evolving threat landscape as well as on actionable measures. to protect subsea cable infrastructure, and we just heard through the remarks of all of the four ministers that preceded this panel how multi-stakeholder cooperation is indeed a key component to building resilience. Over the next hour or so, the panel discussion will focus on four key components. First, we will look at the current and emerging threat landscape. We will also try to unpack what are some of the vulnerabilities in the digital systems that monitor, manage, and secure subsea cable networks. We will be diving deeper into applicable international law, voluntary norms, and emerging best practices relevant to subsea cable protection. And last but not least, we will try at least our best to come up with some recommendations for strengthening subsea cable security through technical policy and legal mechanism, including the role of public-private partnership. And now, without further ado, I have the pleasure of inviting to join me here on stage and online Camino Camino Kavanagh, expert and research fellow from UNIDIR, Steinar Bjornstad, strategic competence and research manager at TAMPNET, Evijs Taube, member of the management board from Latvia State Radio and Television Center, Sandra Maximiano, chair of the board of directors of ANACOM, and Kent Bressie, who is joining us online, legal advisor for International Cable Protection Committee. Please join me in a round of applause to welcome our speakers on stage. So, we have structured this as a conversation. We have some questions that we have prepared for our experts. If there will be time towards the end of the session, and if you would like to intervene, please do let me know. But I can’t make many promises because we have to finish at 1 p.m. sharp. So Steiner, I’d like to start with you. From an operator’s perspective, how do you integrate resilience into the design and management of subsea cable infrastructure, both technically and strategically, in high-risk regions like the North Sea?

Steinar Bjornstad: Very good question. So at Tampnet, we are an offshore telecom service provider. These type of services is really important these days because it’s also important for oil and gas. So we have a very critical infrastructure. It’s both mobile, it’s satellite, and it’s fixed links. And the thing is, it all depends on the optical subsea fiber cables. So they are really, really important for the services. And the capacity of these cables, it’s enormous, and it’s carrying a lot of traffic, and also for data centers out of Norway. So how to protect these cables, how to enable resilience? The thing is that you need to be able to do this already in the planning. So we have multiple cables, that’s the first thing. And if something goes wrong, we need to repair it quite fast. So we are a member of an alliance, so ensuring that we can have repair within a couple of weeks if something goes wrong. Also, because it’s very high capacity, it’s not that easy to switch this traffic electronically if something goes wrong from one cable to another. But we use optical switching, and even offshore we have optical switching. So we actually switch the light in the optical fiber cables. And by doing this we are able to protect very quickly, put the traffic over to another cable if one cable fails by some reason. So I think that is maybe the key things that we are doing for protecting the traffic.

Giacomo Persi Paoli: Thank you. Camino, I’d like to come to you now. And we’ve heard now, but even in the previous part of the panel, how different regions are experiencing slightly different considerations when it comes to the threat landscape. But building on the work that you’ve done, and if I’d ask you to zoom out and consider a little bit more what is the broader global picture. How is the threat landscape for subsea cable infrastructure evolving across different regions? And what are some of the key challenges that you have identified?

Camino Kavanagh: Thanks Giacomo, and thank you for the invitation to speak here. It’s a real honor to be on this panel with the other panelists. So I think I’ll zoom back in and then zoom out again. What I found interesting from the minister from Estonia, she mentioned the 1884 Convention. And what’s very interesting in some of the research I’ve been doing on damage to subsea cables, if we’re just looking at the submersed element of submarine cables, or subsea cables, was back in 1881, already a group of countries concerned about damage to cables in the North Sea, raised the issue in the pre-negotiations to the 1884 Convention. In 1882, a specific government brought statistics. to the negotiations of the Paris conference and highlighted that 60% of damage to cables was caused by natural events, 35% by unintentional acts due to accidents at sea or force majeure, and 5% due to gross negligence and some malign activities, and I think within that malign activities would have been very minimal. But that was in the build-up to World War I, and as we know during that period as well, state-backed interventions or damage, sabotage, espionage, et cetera, was increasing and was being introduced into battle planning. Let’s move forward a century plus, I think 143 years later, and those statistics wouldn’t have changed very much, although I think maybe the stats between natural causes and unintentional damage caused by accidents and so forth would slightly change in that sense. The number of accidents caused by intentional damage, the stats, it’s very hard to know, because as we know it’s very hard to ascertain responsibility for some of the incidents, but we do know that it’s a great concern for states, and particularly in the European context and Nord Stream, we know that it’s not just a concern with regard to states in this region, but also in the Baltic Sea, the Irish Sea, the North Atlantic, and so forth. But that differs significantly across regions, as was mentioned by Minister Tijani as well. Different regions are experiencing very, very different problems, and so that call for coordination especially coordination from a regulatory perspective, from an operational perspective, is very difficult when your problem set is also very different, and so reaching some kind of alignment there is critical. absolutely key and absolutely key is also engagement with industry. But I’m not going to go too far into that because I understand there are others that will talk about that problem.

Giacomo Persi Paoli: Thank you Camino for this at least first stab at the problem and I think it’s interesting because statistics are normally built on the data we have right and it’s always hard it is hard in the cyber domain and it’s probably just as hard doing that in the specific context of subsea cables to really have strong data on malicious or malign activities because we only hear of the successful attempts. What we don’t know is how much of the malicious activity that threatens or targets subsea cable infrastructure isn’t successful and that in probably if we had more visibility into that and we could do something even even more. But I’d like now to to give the floor to you Evis and your organization as you know speaking of incidents as recently experienced the direct impact of a subsea cable incident. Could you walk us through what happened and the immediate actions that were taken to respond to the disruption of service please.

Evijs Taube: Some some say that the cut cable or unplugged cable is the best way to protect against cyber cyber threats just the unfortunate side effect is the lost loss of communication but jokes aside but my big pleasure to be here and to tell the story and about the incidents on subsea cables of course especially last few years or or especially last couple of years the incidents especially in this area Baltic Sea nor North Sea has dramatically increased like in a normal life before the geopolitics politics changed the incidents happened time by time that’s not that’s not any news the fishing nets, et cetera, but the big incidents in numbers has significantly increased. So also, our company has been prepared, so we had the plans before, we had the drills, procedures, table exercises, algorithms, et cetera, et cetera, spare parts, but when the incident happens, basically everything becomes crystal clear, so not loss of communication, our company, our company’s customers and users immediately feel it, and talking about the impact of the incident, there basically are, let’s simplify the networking, so basically there are two parts, one part is the public internet, and thanks to the design, great design of internet, internet, we can say heals itself, so it rebalances and the public, normal users don’t feel it, and there is other part, let’s call them enterprise or data center to data center, connecting A to B, those guys usually, they should have a second, third or fourth route, if one breaks, everything switches over, like my colleague explained. So about the first part, as far as we know, nobody felt the impact, because the capacity of the connections is very huge, and just losing one cable or one cable connection, normal public don’t feel it. Of course we were speculating that there might be some minor examples, for example somebody was doing the stock exchange trading, where the latency is critical, maybe somebody lost some, we don’t know that, maybe somebody lost a game in Counter-Strike or something like that, where latency is important, talking about the latency. So, over cable is connecting Latvia, Sweden, so very important in terms of latency. When we lost the connection, the latency increased five to ten times, because the speed of light is constant, and then we cannot fight physics in that sense, but otherwise everything continued to work. How we fixed the thing. So, said we need to fix it as soon as possible, but it really depends on preparation. Do we have right spares, do we have right spare cable, the right joints, do we have the vessel stand by agreement, do we have right weather, the waves shouldn’t be higher than two meters, for example, for special vessels. So in our incident, we tried three times to recover, the third time was successful, and despite of February being a short month, we managed to fix it within a month, so 28 days, which is a good result in a winter storm. So all in all, we really had a good lesson, you cannot compare that practical lesson to the table exercise, and we learned a lot from it.

Giacomo Persi Paoli: Thank you, also for bringing to light some very concrete examples of the sort of incidents that can occur, but also the 28 days is a remarkable result, but it shows that it’s not something that can be fixed overnight, so it does really require adequate planning and adequate resourcing, otherwise 28 days can then be extended even further. I’d like now to come to you Sandra, and given the strategic location and tradition, Portugal is a very relevant player. in the submarine cable industry, and through your work with ANACOM, the National Regulatory Authority for Communications in Portugal, and more recently with the ITU Advisory Body for Submarine Cable Resilience, what practices do you recognize as being most effective for strengthening subsea cable protection at the national level, as well as across jurisdictions?

Sandra Maximiano: First of all, thanks a lot for the invitation. It’s really a great honor to be here and talking about this so important topic. First, I would also like to tell you that Portugal geography places us at the crossroads of global connectivity. We have one of the largest exclusive economic zones in the world, and the long tradition of cable landings. Portugal is uniquely positioned to strengthen its role in the field. So in fact, submarine cables already link us directly to multiple continents. Also, we have two autonomous regions, Madeira and the Source, which are composed by islands, and they depend almost entirely on submarine cables for communication. So that makes us also having this privileged position, but it comes with special responsibilities for ensuring the resilience of submarine cable systems. So we truly believe in four, I would say, key aspects. First, to build redundancy and route diversity. Second, strategic preparation and predictive maintenance. And third, protection zones, so building these protection zones and promote rapid repair capacity. So after all, we cannot prevent every incident. Submarine cable faults are inevitable, as it has been. question we have on how can we or how can it be developed, and how can it be architected so educated people can go to the markets and compete with the hybrid works. There is also some small setbacks which It also suggests a sudden social pause, amongst other things for creating the resilience, ensuring continuity of service of disruption, and these will probably involve, I’ll say four important points, establish multiple geographical diverse cables routes and alternative routes, including satellite backups and terrestrial connections. Avoiding strategic choke points to minimize congestion and high-risk areas, which are more susceptible to sabotage or accidents. And deploying armored cables and burying cables deeper in higher-risk areas. And this will be four important points for planning and building redundancy. Second, I’ll mention strategic preparation, which includes building intelligence into our networks, so they can adapt in real-time. Technologies like software-defining networking and AI analytics allow dynamic rerouting and predictive detection. This agility reduces downtime and boosts resilience. Third, we need collective mechanisms to support repair capacity, especially for regions and countries that lack those resources, to respond on their own. This is particularly important for island states and remote regions. And, at last, we need to promote rapid repair, and it’s really important. For that, we need licensing and permitting procedures that should be simplified and more flexible. And, of course, promote investment in repair vessels and joint capacity. These priorities cannot be postponed. Equally important is having clear plans for incident response, setting strict deadlines for repairs, and establishing priorities levels so that, in case of multiple simultaneous failures, the most critical links, those essential for national security and public welfare, are restored first. So, it’s very important to know which critical infrastructures are in every country so we can establish these priorities. We’re also at a time when technological innovation, particularly artificial intelligence, is reshaping the landscape. The training and deployment of large AI models demand massive computational capacity, as we know, and energy-intensive data centers, which, in turn, depend on robust, high-capacity connectivity, also submarine cables. This is not just about speed, but about enabling an entirely new digital paradigm. Anacom is actively monitoring these trends to ensure that our regulatory framework anticipates infrastructure bottlenecks and ensures sustainable high-capacity connectivity. So, in a very high-speed, I would say, technological change environment, we need regulation to keep the same pace, and that’s what Anacom is investing in nowadays, to keep the same pace as innovation goes, to have a proper regulatory framework. that can enable the redundancy and resilience of marine cables.

Giacomo Persi Paoli: Thank you. Thank you very much for your initial overview of some key topics. Again, building on the idea that resilience is intentional. It’s not something that can be responsive to the need. The issue of preparedness and the issue of regulation, which are very important. Kent, thank you so much for patiently waiting online. It is a pleasure to see you on the screen. We’ve heard now and before the importance of public-private partnerships when it comes to the protection of subsea cables. And through your work at ICPC, you engage substantially with both governments and industry. So from your perspective, what are the most effective ways to strengthen public-private partnership in responding to cable-related threats?

Kent Bressie: Thank you, Giacomo, for allowing me to participate remotely. I am actually currently on holiday in Greece before I teach oceans law as part of the Rhodes Academy of Oceans Law and Policy, which runs each year here in Greece. It’s also nice to see my fellow panelists. To your question, more than anything else, we need more and better awareness and communication between and among submarine cable operators, other marine industries, and governments at the national, regional, and multilateral levels. These are never-ending tasks. They are not one-time things, but we really see a need for ongoing dialogue among these stakeholders at all levels. In particular, governments need to understand what industry already does to promote cable protection and resilience in the design and operation of systems, and also to recognize those actions that governments are uniquely positioned to take, particularly with political and military responses. to intentional damage. In some cases, industry and governments have shared tasks. We also need better understanding of risks and threats to cables. The ICPC, in particular, has a lot of very good data on that, but I’m not sure that it’s always recognized or understood. We also need to understand the interrelationships between unintentional and intentional sources of damage and the fact that the cause of damage is not always immediately known. In the design and development phase, submarine cable operators embed cable protection and system design by selecting routes and landings that balance connectivity needs with risk mitigation and geographic diversity, which Sandra and others today have taken note of, all of which strengthens resilience. In the operating phase, subsequent other marine stakeholders and to publicize the locations of cables, which I’ll return to in a second as that’s become increasingly fraught. Governments don’t need to dictate or duplicate those particular actions, but again, there are some actions that only governments can take. The ICPC launched in 2021 its best practices for governments for cable protection and resilience to highlight the ICPC’s own thinking about this. In particular, the best practices advocate for a holistic approach to risks that minimizes infrastructure damage and promotes continuity of communication, even in the event that there is infrastructure damage. So the best practices are not a lengthy document. They were meant to be very user-friendly, about 12 pages long, and have some very specific best practices. This is highlighted, including the use of default separation distances between cables and other marine activities. As other uncoordinated marine industries, whether it’s wind farms, oil and gas development, seabed mining, vessel anchorages, or fishing can damage cables. Having a single point of contact within national governments. Adoption of cable protection laws and measures and implementation of them. Minimization of cabotage and crewing restrictions, customs duties, taxes, and fees, as this is very much a maritime classification of submarine cables as critical infrastructure in order to secure government resources for protection. This is the subject of a forthcoming study that Camino is publishing. The sharing of risk and threat information between governments and industries we have seen with recent cable damage incidents in the Baltic and the Arctic. There’s still a lot of work to be done there. But so far, I think that a lot of government engagement with the industry in response has so far been very productive. The use of technology such as fiber sensing is also very promising. And then ratification and implementation of the Law of the Sea Convention and the 1884 Convention, both of which established rights and responsibilities for states, including some key tools that relate to cable security. So a lot of these best practices were later incorporated into the New York Statement. Many of them were echoed by Sandra, our previous. panelist speaker. So I’ll just finally note that it’s important for governments to understand how their own policies and regulations can potentially undermine cable protection and resilience, because we’re very concerned about this as an industry, and our best practices also address this. In some jurisdictions, we see national security-oriented regulation creating massive delays for installation and repair permits, and this ultimately undermines development of additional and diverse systems that promote that resilience and allow recovery of damaged systems. We see that regulations oftentimes encourage clustering of cables and landings in narrow corridors to get cables out of the way of offshore energy development or fishing, and that can magnify the risk that a single event will damage multiple cables and disrupt connectivity. And finally, we see a renewed push by some governments to remove cables from nautical charts. This is woefully misguided. Given that approximately 70 percent of cable damage each year is caused by fishing and anchors, removing cables from nautical charts would significantly increase those risks and make it impossible for cable owners to pursue damages claims, because no one would know where the cables are. So ultimately, I don’t think that we need elaborate new regulatory constructs or the like to encourage engagement between governments and industry, but we do need to leverage existing agreements, data, and tools to promote cable resilience, protection, and security, and inform laws, policies, and coordinating mechanisms.

Giacomo Persi Paoli: Thank you, Kent, for sharing. your first remarks with us and, you know, having served 15 years in the Navy, the thought of having subsea infrastructure that is not on nautical charts is terrifying in more than one way. But thank you also for bringing to light the best practices that ICPC has developed that I do invite everyone that is interested in consulting. But also for, you opened by stressing the need for continuous dialogue among different stakeholder groups and I think this is key, this is what we’re trying to do, but of course in an hour and a half we can only scratch the surface, there is much more that needs to be done on a continuous basis, even for the simple reason that people change and rotate, particularly in government you may have a very fruitful dialogue today and in six months your counterparts have rotated and have gone to other posts and other jobs and it is important that this dialogue, that there is a mechanism to really make sure this dialogue is continuous. I’d like to go back to our panel for a second round of questions and coming back to you Evis about the incident that you described earlier, and so following the cable disruption, how did your organisation coordinate with national authorities, international partners and any other stakeholder that was relevant, and what are some of the key lessons that emerged about effective collaboration and communication?

Evijs Taube: I would call it different communication channels and first of all they’re very important and not only about like any subsea cable incidents, like any big incidents, we call it like crisis management within a company, so the team should be, like core team of crisis management should be very precise. should be trained, shouldn’t be bigger than needed. Everybody has to know exactly what to do. And that’s also a question of training. As I mentioned, the table exercises. Second is communication with partners. And here we are touching different stakeholders. It includes authorities. It includes international partners. Because like any subsea cable, in most of the cases, it’s connecting countries, right? So you’re connecting one country to another. In our case, Latvia, Sweden. You should know. In our case, we have the established communication line. I’m not talking about cable communication, but about human communication line connecting to NOX 24 by 7. So you always have, like within a minute or seconds, you know to whom to talk to, right? And that also should be documented in the best case, trained, practiced, et cetera. And then the third part is public communication. Public communication also is very important. And you shouldn’t be silent after the incident for days. In our case, we had prepared and we call it routine. Routine press releases daily. You shouldn’t open too much information. Because in many cases, that’s kind of sensitive information, right? What happened in which place. But you shouldn’t also be totally silent. So you should really feel and feel the balance. What to disclose, what don’t disclose. And that’s also very critical. About the communication with different parties involved, it includes already. In subsea cable cases, it includes, of course, the Navy, the military side. Those algorithms and procedures also have to be established before any incidents to be in place, and it also requires training, requires preparation, should be also algorithms written on a paper, trained, drilled, et cetera. So it’s all about preparation. And then in a practice, in the worst case, of course, when an incident happens, you can try it in real life, and there are lessons always. So like any preparation, any plans, who said, Truman said, that any plans go to waste, but the most important is to do the plans.

Giacomo Persi Paoli: Thank you. And we’ll come back to this plan and prepare issue later, but I now would like to come back to you, Steiner, about, we’ve heard already how it is important to be able to respond as quickly as possible to minimize disruption. So my question to you is, from a technological standpoint, what are some of the emerging tools or innovations that you see as most promising for detecting, mitigating, or responding to threats to subsea cables?

Steinar Bjornstad: Yeah. And the answer, I think, is actually to combine a lot of tools, to monitor, combining several tools, getting a lot of data. And I think I would like to tell a story how this started. It started with trawlers, probably. We didn’t actually know it was cable cuts, and what was it? We just noticed the light went off, and what happened? And then the first tool that came at hand was AIS information. That is GPS information sent from vessels, also containing some information about their activity like, for example, trolling. And by actively monitoring the activity around our cables, we now have a knowledge of what is going on, which vessels are moving around these cables. But that is on the surface, not underwater, not subsea. And some of these vessels, they just turn off their AIS information. So it’s still challenging. And then we started exploring fiber sensing. Fiber sensing actually means that the fiber works as a microphone or an array of microphones. So we can listen underwater to what is going on. By doing this, we are able to see and listen if a troller is approaching. And we can see it like two kilometers away. So we actually see the subsea activity. And that really enables us to take action very early. But the thing is that trollers, they are crossing the cable like ten times every day. It can be as much as that. So what we actually need to know is also if the cable is hit. Because normally this is okay to pass over the cable because it’s buried. And it should be well-buried, protected. But we can’t control the environment. And there are water currents that may make the cable exposed. So we use a different fiber sensing technology that now also gives us statistics on small hits. And by doing this, we can also see where the cable may be vulnerable. So, combining all these technologies, we know where the cable may be vulnerable, if there is something approaching these vulnerable points, and also statistics on what is going on over the cable, what type of vessels are crossing. So today, most of our network is actually covered with fiber sensing techniques, and we have quite a good overview of what is going on.

Giacomo Persi Paoli: So I would say that, would you say that situational awareness, if you want, has improved significantly in recent years, thanks to technological innovations? Yeah? Okay, good. Thank you for that. And Camino, I’d like to come back to you, and building on the insights shared by panelists, as well as drawing from your own research with Unidear, what are some additional other policy or technical approaches that you’ve seen states and other stakeholders exploring to strengthen the protection and resilience of subsea cables?

Camino Kavanagh: Okay, so basically what we did in the research, we broke government approaches down into three different areas. So how government actions, whether it be policy, regulatory, or operational activity, how it contributes to the actual resilience capacities of the systems themselves. So we looked at the absorptive capacities, which would be the kind of preparedness, ensuring all the procedures and protocols, the regulation and so forth, including many of the best practices that Kent mentioned, and that they are in place in the event that something happens. And now the systems are actually built bearing in mind that something will eventually happen, whether it be regardless of the cause. So the second area that we looked at was the responsive capacities of the system. So what are governments doing to actually prepare and support some of the responses required, and I think Sandra mentioned issues related to repair capabilities and capacities. I think the previous panel discussed workforce challenges and so forth. Industry has a significant focus on workforce at the moment, trying to attract young talent into the industry, but it’s difficult. Also governments need to do the same, and we also have to bear in mind that there are some very small governments, small countries that have limited capacities and that have limited resources, so being able to invest in DAS and so forth is a luxury, and one also has to bear in mind that it also has jurisdictional complications, so there are lots of challenges on that front. Also within the restorative capacities, we are seeing that a number of states are actually looking and are investing in market analysis and so forth to see where it would be best, where the better use of their resources would lie and so forth. There are a range of other issues there in that rubric that we touched upon, which I can come back to. The final tranche that we looked at, or the final area, was in adaptive capacities, and we also often forget about those, but I think colleagues here have also talked about learning from incidents, regardless of the cause again, what can we learn from those, and how do we adapt? How do we adapt our national structures, procedures, regulations, and so forth, to be able to prepare and respond to incidents should they happen? And a final thing that cuts across these different areas is that we’ve been talking mainly about the submersed part of the subsea cable system. We’ve touched upon it slightly, but there’s also the network layer, the supply chain issues, a range of other issues. There’s the repair fleet, the store, the supplies, and so forth. So there are a range of different areas and I think connecting these both through government action in our crisis management, emergency planning and so forth is absolutely critical and I don’t think any government is there yet. So how you bring together all of those elements but with working in conjunction with industry as well as academia is absolutely fundamental.

Giacomo Persi Paoli: Thank you Camino. Sandra, I’d like to come back to you with a follow-up question on, you know, given also your role within the advisory body on submarine cable resilience, how do you see international initiatives such as this one foster better cooperation and strengthen the resilience of subsea cable infrastructure?

Sandra Maximiano: So that’s one of the main purposes of the advisory body for submarine cable resilience. And that is one main purpose because definitely collaboration is vital in this case. So to enhance connectivity, to stimulate innovation and promote resilience of submarine cables, and if you look at all these, they are multifaceted tasks and they require collaboration. So across different organizations. So we need governments, we need industry, we need academia and international organizations to work together. So over the past year, ANACOM has deepened our partnerships, recognizing that each player plays a unique role. For instance, governments and regulators create enabling frameworks, as I also mentioned before. Academia advances research and innovation, it’s extremely important. Industry builds and operates vital critical infrastructure. So we need all to work together. And having said this, the challenge is in ensuring that these diverse players speak the same language. And sometimes it’s very difficult because, of course, all of these players, they have their own… interests, they maximize, now speaking like an economist, maximize their own utility and interests, but we need to align their efforts to hard a common goal. And the advisory bodies is an example, it’s a multi-stakeholder forum where we try to do that. So we try to have all these organizations together and working together and trying to align our language for this common goal. So at TANACOM we see this as first-hand and we are very actively fostering an ecosystem that encourage investment in submarine cables and associated infrastructure. We remain committed in leading this agenda at both European and international levels. At European level we do it mainly through BEREC, the body of European regulators for electronic communications and in collaboration with European Commission. In BEREC, for example, TANACOM is a co-leader of the BEREC report on domestic submarine cables in different member states, together with a national regulatory authority from France, ARCEP. We are also very active at European Union Agency for Cybersecurity and this is an important topic there as well. And finally, as mentioned, I’m very proud to co-chair the International Advisory Group for Submarine Cable Resilience, which, as I mentioned, provides a unique global platform for collaboration. So the International Advisory Body, for some that maybe are still not familiar, was launched by the International Telecommunication Union in partnership with the International Cable Protection Committee, ICPC. And this partnership is a significant and fortunate development, combining the ITU’s capacity to promote worldwide dialogue on digital matters with ICPC’s expertise in submarine cable resilience. which I believe to be a very fortunate and needed collaboration. In addition, 40 outstanding personalities from both the public and private sectors across the world are part of the advisory body. So this ensures a diverse knowledge and experience, including contributions from countries ranging from large economies to small island states. So this diversity is extremely important. The role of the advisory body is to promote these open conversations, build trust for the benefit of global community. And we aim at ensuring that discussions are based on technical merit and best practice. I think in my personal view as well, I think we should give special attention to regions, countries and remote islands where economic incentives for prompt response mechanisms are lower. But, of course, their response is important for everyone. So the incentives are there. So we should work in collaboration to increase the response capacity of these small states. The advisory body has made very decisive progress. In particular, I would like to mention in February in Abuja, Nigeria, the International Submarine Cable Resilience Summit. And the body approved the Abuja Declaration, making a key milestone for submarine cable resilience and paving the way for greater international cooperation. Secondly, the body established clear priorities for 2025-26 and decided to form three thematic working groups responsible for deliverable concrete outcomes. These groups will address submarine cable resilience from multiple complementary perspectives. One of the working groups will focus on resilience by design, examining the importance of ensuring service continuity through redundant and diverse communities. communication routes, another working group will focus on timely deployment and repairing of submarine cable systems, exploring how regulatory measures can expedite this process, and the third working group will be dedicated to risk identification, monitoring, and mitigation. So with this framework, we’ll assess the application of new technologies and monitoring systems. So I think it’s, as I said, it’s composed by experts from different regions and stakeholders, and given the progress that we made so far, I’m totally confident that the advisory body will remain committed to ensuring the submarine cables are safe and resilient. So just to conclude, preparing for the future, and especially in this matter, is not a task of one individual body. We must work together, and we share responsibility among regulators, industry, academia, and international communities. So we should cooperate openly, pragmatically, and globally in this case.

Giacomo Persi Paoli: Thank you, Sandra. Kent, I’d like to come back to you for a last question. Now with growing international attention to subsea infrastructure protection, how can new initiatives complement and avoid duplicating existing efforts like those led by ICPC and others?

Kent Bressie: Thank you, Giacomo. Well, first, I’d like to start just by noting that I think Sandra laid out very clearly the amazing collaboration that we have between the ITU and the ICPC under her leadership and that of Osun Tejani, who was on our prior panel, and I think that can be a model for leveraging the industry expertise and experience of the ICPC. PC without duplicating it. But I think it’s also important to understand, Sandra was very generous and helpful in describing the advisory body, but I’m not sure that everyone has a good understanding of what the ICPC does either. So I thought I’d note just briefly that the ICPC was founded in 1958, and it’s the world’s leading organization promoting submarine cable protection and resilience. It’s an NGO that works with its members, governments, international organizations, other marine industries, and the scientific community on a number of key tasks. First, to identify and mitigate risks of natural and human damage to cables. The ICPC has developed the world’s leading databases of cable damage information, and also repair time frames, which are key inputs for the work of the advisory body. The ICPC has developed recommendations and the best practices for governments that I mentioned earlier for the entire cable project lifecycle. The ICPC promotes scientific research regarding cables in the marine environment. This is even more critical in light of the BBNJ agreement under the Law of the Sea Convention. And the ICPC just published in partnership with the United Nations Environment Program World Climate Monitoring Center a report titled Submarine Cables and Marine Biodiversity, which we had very much promoted and provided resources for as a resource for governments as they implement the BBNJ agreement. We also work to promote, and this is particularly my task, the rule of law for the oceans, particularly ratification and implementation of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. And also, as Camino was mentioning, the 1884 Cable Protection Convention on which there is renewed focus. So the ICPC has more than 240 members from approximately 75 countries. Those are industry representatives, but the ICPC also has about 20 government observers, and we welcome more formal government observers, but also engagement even for those governments who are not observers. So we see, as I noted before, a need for continuing engagement and communication. And this is not just between the ICPC and governments and other marine stakeholders, but also the regional cable protection committees that focus on more localized issues around the world. These aren’t formally subsidiaries of the ICPC, but we coordinate closely with them to avoid duplication of work. We have regional cable protection committees that are very active in submarine cables association, the North American Submarine Cable Association, recently established committees in Africa, and the Oceanic Submarine Cable Association. We do not have regional cable protection committees in that area. The ICPC and these other organizations are all keen to work with governments on a range of initiatives and don’t view the recommendations and principles as they advance in a proprietary fashion. As I noted before, the fact that the New York statement included recommendations the ICPC had previously articulated was very flattering, but we would like to see greater adoption by more and more bodies of that. So other ICPC recent engagements, obviously the international advisory body is a key focus for us. co-executive secretary and we’re grateful for the leadership of our co-chairs who are with us today. We held a critical Law of the Sea workshop for our members and regional academics in Singapore last year with the support of the Australian and Singapore governments looking at key issues with the BDDNJ agreement, regulatory and permitting issues, and security among others. We have worked with the UNODC to develop cable resilience plans in the Indian Ocean region and it’s a really interesting and helpful model I think for a lot of countries in considering how to bring together stakeholders to think more in a more integrated way about connectivity and cable protection. And then I serve on the International Law Association’s Committee on Submarine Cables and Pipelines which is developing guidelines to address prevention, monitoring, and responses under international law to intentional cable damage. As I noted before, we’re unlikely to get a new treaty addressing some of these issues but the ICPC’s view is that countries have existing tools under international law that they can and should use and we certainly point to the government of Finland as having made good use of those tools. So finally there’s a need for better communication and coordination on issues and multilateral processes so these aren’t just sort of looking at best practices initiatives but also looking at collaborating on some critical issues and other fora globally. These include work in the International Seabed Authority to ensure cable protection and resilience in relation to deep sea mining which is increasingly an issue given the push for critical minerals. and development of green technologies, the impact of the new BBNJ agreement on cable routing and permitting, and cable damage by dark fleet ships, which we remain concerned is something that the international community, including the IMO has not yet been able to address effectively. So in general, I think we have the data analysis, recommendations, and potential legal tools that we need,

Karianne Tung: and which shouldn’t necessarily be duplicated, but we need much better and more comprehensive global implementation. Thank you.

Giacomo Persi Paoli: Thank you, Kent. We have just a couple of minutes before we have to wrap up this panel. So before I share with you some concluding remarks from my notes, I just wanted to give the panelists literally 20 to 30 seconds maximum, if there is one key takeaway that you would like the audience to walk away after this hour and a half discussing subsea cables, what would that be? And you can only add to whatever the other person has said. So starting with you, Camino.

Camino Kavanagh: Prepare and exercise your preparedness.

Giacomo Persi Paoli: Thank you.

Session video: Be prepared, monitor what is going on, situational awareness.

Evijs Taube: I would mention again, this dust systems, which were mentioned. So every cable, existing cable is a big asset, and we can call it a big sensor. If we install, already installed, also on the new cables, distributed or centralized, whatever integrated system of such a sensors in a particular area, for example, Baltic Sea, which is very compact sea. Some call it Baltic Lake as a test bed. And that would give a big benefit, not only protecting the cables, but to understand what is going on under the water. There is a shadow fleet, there is normal fleet, there is other fleet, but nobody knows what is happening. If shadow fleet switches off the AIS system, it goes invisible. with such sensors, we can immediately see something better.

Giacomo Persi Paoli: Thank you. Sandra?

Sandra Maximiano: And as I said, I think collaboration is the key. This is a very important matter. It’s a multi-stakeholder issue and we should work together and, as I said, involve everyone, governments, academia, regulators, international organizations, and increase awareness and, of course, work on the best practices. I think booklets of best practices to act are very important and especially some countries are at a different speed, but in this issue we should all try to align the speed that we move on because, as I said, small states, remote islands, they can’t be left alone because it will have a negative impact for all of us.

Giacomo Persi Paoli: Thank you. Kent, any final thoughts on your side?

Kent Bressie: Yes. Convene and communicate with stakeholders. Negotiations are really a complicated place.

Giacomo Persi Paoli: Thank you. So, very quickly, because time is up, what I took away from this hour and a half is the following. Strengthening the resilience of subsea cable is a team sport. It’s a team sport that requires different players knowing exactly what to do and working together as a team. No individual player can really achieve this ambitious goal without working with others. But also that resilience has different components. One is protection. Protection is key, but it’s also necessary, but it’s not sufficient. It has to be matched with adequate planning, because no matter how well we protect our cables, incidents are going to happen, and it’s important to have plans that are well thought in advance, so resiliency cannot be improvised. It has to be made by design through careful planning. But while planning is essential, plans are useless unless they are put in practice through concrete measures of preparedness, which include dialogue and discussions and cooperation between states, between public and private cooperation. And this cooperation needs to be tested through exercises, through crisis management drills that really bring to the surface all of the possible mechanisms that need to be improved, because ultimately the last important pillar is the pillar of response that needs to be effective, needs to be quick, in order to minimize disruption and make sure that we work towards resilience, redundancy, and ultimately continuity of service. With that, I hope that the summary does not do justice to an hour and a half in discussion, but hopefully it touches on the key points, and we’re out of time. I do invite you to approach our speakers and experts after the session if you would like to ask more questions. All is left for me to do is to thank you, the audience, for engaging or for being here in person and online, the government of Norway, not only for being amazing hosts, but also for partnering with UNIDIR in organizing this session, and of course, last but not least, to our excellent experts and speakers that took their time to share their knowledge with us. So please join me in a round of applause for our speakers. Thank you.

Agreement points

Critical Infrastructure Dependency

Speakers

– Giacomo Persi Paoli
– Karianne Tung
– Bosun Tijani
– Liisa-Ly Pakosta

Arguments

Subsea cables carry over 99% of global intercontinental data traffic, making them critical digital infrastructure

Digital society is completely dependent on submarine cables for healthcare, education, transport systems

Submarine cables are not just technical assets but the most important critical infrastructure globally

Estonia as a fully digital state faces actual threats to government services when cables are cut

Summary

All speakers unanimously agree that subsea cables represent critical infrastructure that modern digital society cannot function without, carrying the vast majority of global data traffic and supporting essential services

Topics

Infrastructure | Cybersecurity

International Cooperation Necessity

Speakers

– Karianne Tung
– Jarno Syrjala
– Bosun Tijani
– Liisa-Ly Pakosta
– Sandra Maximiano

Arguments

Cross-border cooperation is crucial since submarine cables cross national borders and international waters

International cooperation through NATO, EU, and ITU helps build resilience and response capabilities

Many countries and regions lack expertise and frameworks to address cable protection

Need for universal set of rules to protect citizens across all continents

ITU Advisory Body provides global platform for collaboration between public and private sectors

Summary

Strong consensus that submarine cable protection requires extensive international cooperation due to the cross-border nature of the infrastructure and varying national capabilities

Topics

Infrastructure | Legal and regulatory

Public-Private Partnership Requirements

Speakers

– Karianne Tung
– Jarno Syrjala
– Kent Bressie

Arguments

Close cooperation between private sector and civil/defense authorities maximizes knowledge and strength

Solid public-private partnership is one of the most important aspects of telecommunications resilience

Need for better awareness and communication between submarine cable operators, marine industries, and governments

Summary

Clear agreement that effective subsea cable protection requires strong partnerships between government and private sector, combining their respective expertise and capabilities

Topics

Infrastructure | Legal and regulatory

Resilience by Design Philosophy

Speakers

– Bosun Tijani
– Sandra Maximiano
– Steinar Bjornstad

Arguments

Resilience should be intentional and built into design, not an afterthought

Building redundancy through multiple geographical diverse cable routes and avoiding strategic choke points

Multiple cables and optical switching enable quick traffic rerouting when cables fail

Summary

Consensus that resilience must be intentionally designed into cable systems from the beginning, incorporating redundancy and multiple pathways rather than being added as an afterthought

Topics

Infrastructure | Cybersecurity

Preparation and Planning Importance

Speakers

– Evijs Taube
– Camino Kavanagh
– Sandra Maximiano

Arguments

Preparation through table exercises and drills, though real incidents provide irreplaceable learning

Prepare and exercise your preparedness

Need for collective mechanisms to support repair capacity, especially for regions lacking resources

Summary

Strong agreement that effective cable protection requires extensive advance preparation, including exercises, drills, and pre-positioned resources for rapid response

Topics

Infrastructure | Cybersecurity

Similar viewpoints

These speakers share the view that the threat landscape has fundamentally changed, with increased intentional attacks on subsea cables, particularly in the context of current geopolitical tensions and conflicts

Speakers

– Karianne Tung
– Liisa-Ly Pakosta
– Camino Kavanagh

Arguments

Recent incidents with damages to subsea cables in Baltic Sea and Red Sea highlight increased vulnerability

Dramatic rise in ‘accidents’ during full-scale war in Ukraine, with intentional cable cutting by Russian shadow fleet

Historical perspective shows 60% natural causes, 35% unintentional accidents, 5% malicious activity, but intentional threats are increasing

Topics

Cybersecurity | Infrastructure

Both emphasize the potential of advanced sensing technologies, particularly fiber sensing and distributed acoustic sensing, to transform cables into comprehensive monitoring systems

Speakers

– Steinar Bjornstad
– Session video

Arguments

Combining multiple monitoring tools including AIS information and fiber sensing provides comprehensive situational awareness

Distributed acoustic sensing can turn fiber optic cables into virtual hydrophones for ocean monitoring

Topics

Infrastructure | Cybersecurity

Both speakers highlight the disparity in global capabilities for cable protection, with particular concern for developing countries and small island states that lack resources and expertise

Speakers

– Bosun Tijani
– Sandra Maximiano

Arguments

Many countries and regions lack expertise and frameworks to address cable protection

Small island states and remote regions need special attention where economic incentives for response are lower

Topics

Infrastructure | Development

Unexpected consensus

Technology Integration for Monitoring

Speakers

– Steinar Bjornstad
– Evijs Taube
– Session video

Arguments

Fiber sensing technology allows cables to work as underwater microphones, detecting approaching threats

Importance of established communication lines with international partners and 24/7 contact protocols

Existing global fiber optic cable network can serve as comprehensive monitoring system for multiple applications

Explanation

Unexpected strong consensus emerged around leveraging existing cable infrastructure for comprehensive monitoring beyond just communication purposes, including environmental monitoring and threat detection. This represents a shift from viewing cables purely as communication infrastructure to seeing them as multi-purpose sensing networks

Topics

Infrastructure | Cybersecurity

Regulatory Framework Challenges

Speakers

– Kent Bressie
– Sandra Maximiano

Arguments

Government policies can potentially undermine cable protection through excessive delays and clustering requirements

Need for regulation to keep pace with technological innovation and high-capacity connectivity demands

Explanation

Unexpected consensus that well-intentioned government regulations can actually harm cable security, with both speakers acknowledging that regulatory frameworks need to be carefully designed to support rather than hinder cable protection efforts

Topics

Infrastructure | Legal and regulatory

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion revealed remarkably strong consensus across all speakers on fundamental issues: the critical importance of subsea cables to modern society, the necessity of international cooperation, the requirement for public-private partnerships, and the need for intentional resilience design. There was also broad agreement on the changing threat landscape and the importance of preparation and planning.

Consensus level

Very high level of consensus with no significant disagreements identified. This strong alignment suggests the subsea cable protection community has developed shared understanding of challenges and solutions, which bodes well for coordinated international action. The consensus spans technical, policy, and governance dimensions, indicating mature thinking about this critical infrastructure challenge.

Different viewpoints

Approach to cable location transparency vs. security

Speakers

– Kent Bressie

Arguments

Removing cables from nautical charts is misguided and would increase risks from fishing and anchoring

Summary

Kent Bressie strongly opposes government efforts to remove cable locations from nautical charts for security reasons, arguing this would increase the primary causes of damage (70% from fishing/anchoring). However, no other speakers directly addressed this specific policy debate, suggesting potential disagreement exists but wasn’t explicitly debated.

Topics

Infrastructure | Legal and regulatory

Unexpected differences

Limited explicit debate on regulatory approaches

Speakers

– Kent Bressie
– Sandra Maximiano

Arguments

Government policies can potentially undermine cable protection through excessive delays and clustering requirements

Need for regulation to keep pace with technological innovation and high-capacity connectivity demands

Explanation

Unexpectedly, there was minimal debate about the balance between security-focused regulation and operational efficiency. Kent Bressie warned about over-regulation creating delays and vulnerabilities, while Sandra Maximiano advocated for proactive regulatory frameworks. This fundamental tension between security and efficiency wasn’t directly addressed or debated.

Topics

Infrastructure | Legal and regulatory

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion showed remarkable consensus on key issues: the critical importance of subsea cables, need for international cooperation, public-private partnerships, resilience by design, and preparation for incidents. The few areas of potential disagreement were not directly debated.

Disagreement level

Very low disagreement level. This consensus likely reflects the technical and collaborative nature of the subsea cable community, but may also indicate insufficient exploration of challenging policy trade-offs. The high level of agreement could facilitate implementation of recommended measures, but might also suggest that more difficult questions about resource allocation, regulatory balance, and competing priorities need deeper examination in future discussions.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

These speakers share the view that the threat landscape has fundamentally changed, with increased intentional attacks on subsea cables, particularly in the context of current geopolitical tensions and conflicts

Speakers

– Karianne Tung
– Liisa-Ly Pakosta
– Camino Kavanagh

Arguments

Recent incidents with damages to subsea cables in Baltic Sea and Red Sea highlight increased vulnerability

Dramatic rise in ‘accidents’ during full-scale war in Ukraine, with intentional cable cutting by Russian shadow fleet

Historical perspective shows 60% natural causes, 35% unintentional accidents, 5% malicious activity, but intentional threats are increasing

Topics

Cybersecurity | Infrastructure

Both emphasize the potential of advanced sensing technologies, particularly fiber sensing and distributed acoustic sensing, to transform cables into comprehensive monitoring systems

Speakers

– Steinar Bjornstad
– Session video

Arguments

Combining multiple monitoring tools including AIS information and fiber sensing provides comprehensive situational awareness

Distributed acoustic sensing can turn fiber optic cables into virtual hydrophones for ocean monitoring

Topics

Infrastructure | Cybersecurity

Both speakers highlight the disparity in global capabilities for cable protection, with particular concern for developing countries and small island states that lack resources and expertise

Speakers

– Bosun Tijani
– Sandra Maximiano

Arguments

Many countries and regions lack expertise and frameworks to address cable protection

Small island states and remote regions need special attention where economic incentives for response are lower

Topics

Infrastructure | Development

Key takeaways

Subsea cables carrying 99% of global intercontinental data are critical infrastructure requiring urgent protection due to increasing intentional threats, particularly from geopolitical tensions and hybrid warfare

Resilience must be built by design through four key pillars: protection, planning, preparedness, and response – it cannot be improvised or treated as an afterthought

Strengthening subsea cable security is a ‘team sport’ requiring coordinated multi-stakeholder cooperation between governments, industry, academia, and international organizations

Public-private partnerships are essential, with governments needing to understand industry capabilities while taking actions only they can perform (political/military responses)

Technical innovations like fiber sensing and distributed acoustic sensing are revolutionizing threat detection and situational awareness for cable monitoring

Regional cooperation frameworks (North Sea 2024, Baltic Sea 2025) demonstrate effective models for cross-border collaboration on cable protection

Redundancy and route diversity are critical for resilience, with countries needing multiple cable connections rather than single points of failure

Repair capacity and preparedness require significant investment in specialized vessels, equipment, spare parts, and trained personnel

Different regions face vastly different threat landscapes, requiring tailored approaches while maintaining global coordination standards

Resolutions and action items

ITU Advisory Body for Submarine Cable Resilience established three working groups for 2025-26: resilience by design, timely deployment/repair, and risk identification/monitoring

Abuja Declaration approved in February 2025 as milestone for international cooperation on submarine cable resilience

Countries committed to implementing EU Action Plan on Cable Security with four objectives: prevention, detection, response/repair, and deterrence

Multiple countries signed New York Declaration on Submarine Cable Security to promote integrity and accessibility

Norway establishing dedicated cooperation between private sector and civil/defense authorities with clarified roles and responsibilities

Nigeria setting up dedicated desk within communications commission for cable protection protocols and international coordination

Finland transposing NIS2 directive into national law (April 2025) with comprehensive telecommunications resilience requirements

Unresolved issues

Limited repair capacity globally, particularly shortage of specialized vessels and trained personnel for cable maintenance

Lack of adequate frameworks and expertise in many developing countries and small island states for cable protection

Insufficient economic incentives for prompt response mechanisms in remote regions where commercial viability is lower

Debate over removing cables from nautical charts for security versus safety concerns (industry strongly opposes removal)

Challenges in attributing responsibility for cable incidents and distinguishing between intentional and unintentional damage

Regulatory delays and bureaucratic obstacles that can undermine cable protection and repair efforts

Workforce development challenges in attracting young talent to the submarine cable industry

Coordination difficulties across different jurisdictions and legal frameworks for international cable systems

Suggested compromises

Collective mechanisms to support repair capacity for regions and countries lacking resources, with shared investment in repair vessels and joint capacity

Balanced approach to cable route planning that avoids both strategic choke points and excessive clustering while meeting connectivity needs

Graduated response protocols that prioritize critical infrastructure restoration based on national security and public welfare importance

Flexible licensing and permitting procedures that balance security requirements with operational efficiency for repairs

Regional cooperation models that can be adapted to different geographic and political contexts while maintaining core protection principles

Public-private information sharing frameworks that protect sensitive operational details while enabling effective threat response

Technology sharing arrangements where advanced countries assist developing nations with monitoring capabilities and expertise transfer

Resilience should be intentional. It shouldn’t be something that is afterthought… I was surprised at how, of course, we were fortunate, the private sector… came together. But as a minister, I didn’t have any answer to give to people. And people don’t often complain about companies when you have natural disasters. It’s the government that they look to for answer.

Speaker

Bosun Tijani (Minister of Communications, Innovation and Digital Economy of Nigeria)

Reason

This comment fundamentally reframed the discussion from technical protection measures to governance accountability. Tijani’s personal experience during the West African cable cuts revealed a critical gap between technical preparedness and political responsibility, highlighting how governments are held accountable for infrastructure failures regardless of ownership structures.

Impact

This shifted the conversation toward the need for proactive government frameworks and sparked subsequent discussions about public-private partnerships, regulatory preparedness, and the importance of having clear protocols before incidents occur. It influenced other speakers to emphasize planning and preparedness rather than just reactive measures.

Let us remember that it was 1884 when the Paris Convention of Undersea Telegraphic Cables was agreed… So this is actually the situation where we are just now, as well, within the broader geopolitical situation. What we see around this area… that the Russian shadow fleet is cutting down our connections.

Speaker

Liisa-Ly Pakosta (Minister of Justice and Digital Affairs of Estonia)

Reason

This historical parallel was profound because it connected current geopolitical tensions to a 140-year pattern of intentional cable disruption during conflicts. By referencing the 1884 convention, Pakosta demonstrated that cable protection challenges aren’t new but have evolved with geopolitical contexts, directly naming current threat actors.

Impact

This comment elevated the discussion from technical and regulatory issues to explicit geopolitical framing, legitimizing direct discussion of state-sponsored threats. It influenced the tone of subsequent technical discussions by establishing the current security environment as fundamentally different from peacetime operations.

Statistics from 1882: 60% of damage caused by natural events, 35% by unintentional acts due to accidents at sea or force majeure, and 5% due to gross negligence and some malign activities… those statistics wouldn’t have changed very much, although… the stats between natural causes and unintentional damage… would slightly change… it’s very hard to ascertain responsibility for some of the incidents.

Speaker

Camino Kavanagh (UNIDIR expert)

Reason

This historical data analysis was intellectually striking because it revealed the consistency of threat patterns across 140+ years while highlighting the fundamental challenge of attribution in cable incidents. It provided empirical grounding for policy discussions while acknowledging the inherent difficulty in distinguishing between intentional and unintentional damage.

Impact

This comment provided crucial context that influenced how other speakers framed their responses, moving away from assumptions about threat prevalence toward evidence-based discussions. It also highlighted the attribution challenge that became a recurring theme in technical monitoring discussions.

We see a renewed push by some governments to remove cables from nautical charts. This is woefully misguided. Given that approximately 70 percent of cable damage each year is caused by fishing and anchors, removing cables from nautical charts would significantly increase those risks and make it impossible for cable owners to pursue damages claims.

Speaker

Kent Bressie (ICPC legal advisor)

Reason

This comment challenged a counterintuitive security approach that could actually increase vulnerabilities. It demonstrated how security-through-obscurity thinking can backfire in maritime infrastructure, where transparency actually enhances protection by enabling avoidance of accidental damage.

Impact

This practical insight influenced the discussion toward evidence-based security measures rather than intuitive but potentially counterproductive approaches. It reinforced the theme that effective protection requires understanding actual threat vectors rather than theoretical ones.

Every cable, existing cable is a big asset, and we can call it a big sensor. If we install… distributed or centralized… integrated system of such sensors in a particular area, for example, Baltic Sea… that would give a big benefit, not only protecting the cables, but to understand what is going on under the water.

Speaker

Evijs Taube (Latvia State Radio and Television Center)

Reason

This comment introduced a paradigm shift from viewing cables as passive infrastructure to active sensing networks. It suggested transforming the problem from protecting vulnerable assets to creating a comprehensive underwater surveillance system, turning the infrastructure itself into a security solution.

Impact

This technical insight influenced the discussion toward dual-use technologies and comprehensive situational awareness. It connected to earlier discussions about distributed acoustic sensing and elevated the conversation from individual cable protection to regional maritime domain awareness.

We need a combination of national, regional, and international cooperation to achieve effective resilience measures… Threats to subsea communication cables are not limited by national borders, so international cooperation is vital for protection of subsea cables.

Speaker

Karianne Tung (Norwegian Minister of Digitalisation)

Reason

While cooperation was mentioned throughout, Tung’s framing established the multi-level governance structure needed for transnational infrastructure. Her concrete examples of North Sea and Baltic Sea cooperation agreements provided practical models for how abstract cooperation principles could be operationalized.

Impact

This set the framework for the entire discussion, with subsequent speakers building on the multi-stakeholder, multi-level cooperation theme. It influenced how other participants framed their national experiences within broader international contexts.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally shaped the discussion by establishing three critical frameworks: (1) the historical continuity of cable threats with contemporary geopolitical urgency, (2) the shift from reactive technical protection to proactive governance accountability, and (3) the transformation of cables from passive infrastructure to active sensing networks. The most impactful insight was Tijani’s reframing of resilience as intentional governance responsibility, which influenced subsequent speakers to emphasize preparedness and planning over purely technical solutions. The historical perspectives from Pakosta and Kavanagh provided crucial context that legitimized current security concerns while grounding them in empirical evidence. Together, these comments elevated the discussion from a technical workshop to a strategic policy dialogue that balanced historical lessons, current geopolitical realities, and future technological possibilities.

How can we develop well-working mechanisms that are innovative and willing to experiment for protecting critical undersea infrastructure?

Speaker

Jarno Syrjala

Explanation

There’s a need for urgency in developing innovative technological solutions and experimental approaches to protect subsea cables, suggesting current methods may be insufficient

What is the optimal investment strategy for repair ships and talent given that cable incidents don’t happen frequently?

Speaker

Bosun Tijani

Explanation

The challenge of making calculated investments in repair capacity and skilled workforce when incidents are infrequent but critical when they occur needs further analysis

How can we better understand the statistics and data on malicious activities targeting subsea cables?

Speaker

Camino Kavanagh (implied by Giacomo Persi Paoli)

Explanation

There’s limited visibility into unsuccessful malicious attempts against subsea cables, making it difficult to assess the true scope of intentional threats

How can countries with limited resources and capacities invest in advanced monitoring technologies like DAS (Distributed Acoustic Sensing)?

Speaker

Camino Kavanagh

Explanation

Small governments and countries have limited resources to invest in expensive monitoring technologies, creating gaps in global protection coverage

How can we address the workforce challenges in the subsea cable industry to attract young talent?

Speaker

Camino Kavanagh

Explanation

Both industry and governments face difficulties in attracting young professionals to work in the subsea cable sector, which is critical for long-term resilience

How can we better integrate crisis management and emergency planning across different elements of subsea cable systems (submersed parts, network layer, supply chain, repair fleet)?

Speaker

Camino Kavanagh

Explanation

No government has yet successfully integrated all aspects of subsea cable protection into comprehensive crisis management systems

How can we ensure regulatory frameworks keep pace with rapid technological changes, particularly AI and high-capacity connectivity demands?

Speaker

Sandra Maximiano

Explanation

The rapid evolution of technology, especially AI requiring massive computational capacity, is outpacing regulatory frameworks designed to ensure cable resilience

How can we address cable damage by dark fleet ships through international mechanisms like the IMO?

Speaker

Kent Bressie

Explanation

The international community has not yet effectively addressed the threat posed by dark fleet vessels that can damage cables while operating without proper identification

How can we implement integrated distributed acoustic sensing systems across compact sea areas like the Baltic Sea?

Speaker

Evijs Taube

Explanation

Creating a comprehensive underwater monitoring network using existing cables as sensors could provide better situational awareness but requires coordination and technical implementation

How can we develop mechanisms to ensure continuity of dialogue between government and industry stakeholders despite personnel rotation?

Speaker

Giacomo Persi Paoli

Explanation

The challenge of maintaining effective public-private partnerships when government personnel frequently rotate to different positions needs systematic solutions

Summary

This discussion was a networking session about the 18th edition of EuroDIG (European Dialogue on Internet Governance), which took place in Strasbourg at the Council of Europe. Sandra Hoferichter welcomed participants and explained that this year’s conference returned to where EuroDIG originally began, making it particularly special. The overarching theme was “balancing innovation and regulation” with an added focus on “safeguarding human rights” given the Council of Europe venue.

Thomas Schneider, Swiss ambassador and president of the EuroDIG Support Association, presented key messages from the WSIS+20 review process. He emphasized that the European community strongly supports the multi-stakeholder approach as fundamental to solving digital issues, with regional diversity and National and Regional Internet Governance Initiatives (NRIs) being crucial for bringing diverse voices into global processes. The community advocates for making the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) a permanent institution rather than renewing its mandate every 10 years, and calls for the WSIS+20 process to be more open, transparent, and inclusive rather than conducted behind closed doors.

Frances Douglas-Thompson, a YouthDIG participant, highlighted two controversial areas that emerged from youth discussions. First, regarding digital literacy, young people disagreed on how to approach generative AI in education—whether it should be seen as a positive assistant or as something that creates complacency and erodes critical thinking skills. Second, on content moderation, there was significant disagreement between those favoring strict moderation to combat misinformation and violence, and those concerned about freedom of speech and expression. The youth ultimately agreed on improving algorithm transparency so users can better understand why they receive certain content.

The session concluded with audience questions addressing broader challenges in internet governance, including the role of these dialogues during humanitarian crises and how to increase youth participation in policy discussions.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **WSIS+20 Review and Internet Governance Framework**: Discussion of EuroDIG’s input on the World Summit on the Information Society plus 20 review process, emphasizing the need for multi-stakeholder approaches, making the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) a permanent institution rather than renewing it every 10 years, and ensuring the review process remains open and inclusive rather than conducted behind closed doors.

– **Youth Participation and Controversial Digital Policy Issues**: Presentation of YouthDIG findings highlighting divisions among young Europeans on key issues like digital literacy curriculum design, the role of generative AI in education, and content moderation approaches – with some favoring strict moderation while others worried about freedom of expression implications.

– **AI Governance and Human Rights**: Focus on artificial intelligence governance challenges, particularly around privacy and data protection in environments where distinguishing private from non-private data becomes increasingly difficult, and the need to safeguard human rights in digital spaces.

– **Democratic Participation and Crisis Response**: Discussion of how internet governance forums can address humanitarian crises, misinformation during conflicts, and the broader challenge of maintaining democratic engagement when people may be losing faith in democratic institutions and seeking simpler answers from authoritarian figures.

– **Practical Youth Engagement Strategies**: Exploration of effective methods for involving young people in internet governance, including financial support for participation, bottom-up rather than top-down approaches, and creating spaces where youth voices are taken seriously in policy discussions.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion served as a networking session and report-back from the 18th EuroDIG conference, aimed at sharing key outcomes and messages from the European internet governance community, particularly focusing on WSIS+20 review input and youth perspectives, while fostering dialogue about current digital policy challenges.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a professional yet accessible tone throughout, beginning with formal presentations but becoming increasingly interactive and engaged as audience questions introduced more complex and sometimes challenging topics. The tone remained constructive and solution-oriented even when addressing difficult issues like democratic backsliding and humanitarian crises, with speakers demonstrating both realism about current challenges and optimism about the potential for continued progress through multi-stakeholder dialogue.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Sandra Hoferichter** – Session moderator/facilitator for EuroDIG networking session

– **Thomas Schneider** – Swiss ambassador, President of the EuroDIG Support Association

– **Frances Douglas Thomson** – YouthDIG participant, youth representative

– **Hans Seeuws** – Business operations manager of .eu (operates top-level domain on behalf of the European Commission)

– **Chetan Sharma** – Representative from Data Mission Foundation Trust India

– **Janice Richardson** – Expert to the Council of Europe

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

**Additional speakers:**

– **Thomas** (different from Thomas Schneider) – Former youth delegate/youth digger from the previous year

– **Audience member from Geneva** – Representative from Geneva Macro labs University of Geneva, active with program committee

# EuroDIG 18th Edition: Networking Session Summary

## Introduction and Context

The 18th edition of EuroDIG (European Dialogue on Internet Governance) took place at the Council of Europe in Strasbourg, marking a symbolic return to where the initiative originally began in 2008. Sandra Hoferichter, serving as session moderator, welcomed participants to this 30-minute networking session during the lunch break, designed to share key outcomes and messages from the conference. As Sandra noted, this return to “where it all started” made the event particularly special.

The overarching theme focused on “balancing innovation and regulation” with particular emphasis on “safeguarding human rights,” reflecting the significance of hosting the event at the Council of Europe. Although Council of Europe representatives were unable to attend due to the Deputy Secretary General having another mission, the session proceeded with its planned agenda.

This networking session served multiple purposes: reporting back on conference outcomes, sharing key messages for the WSIS+20 review process, presenting youth perspectives through YouthDIG findings, and fostering dialogue about contemporary digital governance challenges. The discussion brought together diverse stakeholders including diplomats, youth representatives, business operators, and civil society experts.

## WSIS+20 Review Process and European Messages

Thomas Schneider, Swiss ambassador and President of the EuroDIG Support Association, presented the European community’s key messages for the World Summit on the Information Society plus 20 (WSIS+20) review process. These represent “messages from Strasbourg number two” – the first being from 2008 – continuing EuroDIG’s tradition of producing consolidated input from the European internet governance community. Notably, EuroDIG invented the concept of “messages” that has since been adopted by the global IGF and other local IGFs.

The input gathering process was facilitated by Mark Harvell, a former UK government member, and the messages will be delivered to Suela Janina, the Albanian permanent representative who serves as European co-facilitator for WSIS+20.

The European community strongly advocates for maintaining and strengthening the multi-stakeholder approach as fundamental to solving digital issues. Schneider emphasized that regional diversity and National and Regional Internet Governance Initiatives (NRIs) play crucial roles in bringing diverse voices into global processes, ensuring that internet governance remains inclusive rather than dominated by any single stakeholder group.

A significant recommendation concerns the Internet Governance Forum’s institutional status. The European community calls for making the IGF a permanent institution rather than continuing the current practice of renewing its mandate every ten years. This change would provide greater stability and enable better long-term planning. Schneider noted that the IGF has evolved beyond its original focus on “critical internet resources and domain names” and now serves a “decision-shaping” rather than “decision-making” role.

Regarding the WSIS+20 review process itself, there was strong emphasis on ensuring it remains open, transparent, and inclusive rather than being conducted behind closed doors among diplomats. The messages also address contemporary challenges including AI governance, human rights protection in digital spaces, and data protection challenges.

## Youth Perspectives and Digital Policy Controversies

Frances Douglas Thomson, representing YouthDIG participants, presented excerpts from the youth messages, focusing on two particularly controversial areas that emerged from their discussions. The YouthDIG programme brought together young participants who met online the month before EuroDIG, then worked together for three days during the conference to develop their positions.

Thomson revealed that these controversial areas surprised organizers with the level of disagreement among youth participants, challenging common assumptions about youth consensus on digital issues and highlighting the complexity of generational perspectives on digital governance.

### Digital Literacy Curriculum Debates

The first controversial area concerned digital literacy curriculum development, specifically “who decides on the syllabus for digital literacy and how do these issues get presented,” particularly regarding generative AI in educational contexts. Youth participants were divided between those who view AI as a beneficial educational assistant that can enhance learning experiences and those who worry about creating dependency and eroding critical thinking skills.

This disagreement reflects broader questions about educational governance and how emerging technologies should be framed for young learners, suggesting that educational approaches may need to acknowledge multiple perspectives rather than presenting singular narratives.

### Content Moderation: Balancing Safety and Freedom

The second major area involved content moderation approaches, where youth participants were fundamentally split between strict safety measures and freedom of expression concerns. One group supported comprehensive content moderation including warnings, banning, and flagging of harmful content, while another group viewed such measures as threats to free speech.

However, youth participants found common ground in supporting algorithmic transparency. Their compromise solution focused on increased user understanding of “why is the algorithm feeding me this” with options to access “the other side” or “other sources.” This approach emphasizes user empowerment through information rather than content restriction.

### Social Media Regulation Approaches

When asked by a former youth delegate whether the goal should be to “lessen time spent online for youth” or ensure they see the “right type of stuff,” Frances emphasized focusing on content quality rather than quantity restrictions. She argued that time-based restrictions could limit access to valuable democratic spaces where young people engage with political and social issues, advocating instead for approaches that recognize social media’s potential as venues for civic engagement.

## Business and Technical Stakeholder Perspectives

Hans Seeuws, business operations manager of .eu (operating the top-level domain on behalf of the European Commission), provided insights from the technical and business stakeholder perspective. His participation highlighted the importance of involving infrastructure operators in internet governance discussions, as these stakeholders bring practical implementation experience.

Seeuws expressed particular interest in seeing EuroDIG messages influence decision-makers, especially regarding AI governance, human rights protection, data privacy, and youth involvement in policy processes, emphasizing the need for translating policy discussions into practical implementation.

## Crisis Response and Humanitarian Challenges

Chetan Sharma from the Data Mission Foundation Trust India raised challenging questions about internet governance platforms’ effectiveness in addressing humanitarian crises. He argued that these forums had missed opportunities to build advocacy roles during recent crises, suggesting they could contribute more meaningfully to raising awareness about urgent humanitarian situations.

Frances Douglas Thomson responded by highlighting that EuroDIG does address conflict-related issues through discussions on autonomous weapons, internet weaponization, and misinformation in warfare, bringing together diverse stakeholders to examine how digital technologies are used in conflicts.

Thomas Schneider acknowledged the challenges facing multilateral approaches while suggesting that crises can create opportunities for rethinking governance approaches. He noted that despite government knowledge gaps and engagement difficulties, other stakeholders can continue advancing important policy discussions.

## Democratic Participation and Governance Challenges

An audience member from Geneva raised fundamental questions about fixing internet policy when governments lack technical expertise and multilateral approaches appear insufficient. This prompted reflection on traditional governance limitations in addressing rapidly evolving technological challenges.

Schneider provided context suggesting that current challenges may reflect consequences of previous success, where people may be losing appreciation for the effort required to maintain democratic institutions. He emphasized that maintaining democracy and quality information requires continuous effort, particularly during crises when people may seek simple answers to complex problems.

## Youth Engagement Strategies and Implementation

The session explored practical strategies for expanding youth participation beyond current programs. Sandra Hoferichter emphasized the importance of promoting programs like YouthDIG through schools and social media to increase awareness among young people who might not otherwise encounter internet governance discussions.

A significant challenge identified was providing structural support, including financial assistance for travel and accommodation. Sandra made a specific appeal for support for participants from distant countries such as Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia, noting the expensive flight costs that create barriers to participation.

Frances emphasized the importance of bottom-up rather than top-down approaches to youth engagement, ensuring young people feel taken seriously in policy spaces rather than being treated as token participants. She highlighted how these dialogues “impact when people go away from these dialogues how they perceive this issue.”

## Regional Diversity and Global Coordination

Throughout the discussion, speakers emphasized maintaining regional diversity within global internet governance processes. The European approach recognizes that different regions may have different priorities and approaches while still requiring coordination on global issues.

This perspective acknowledges that internet governance challenges manifest differently across regions due to varying legal frameworks, cultural contexts, and technological infrastructure. Regional initiatives like EuroDIG provide opportunities for developing contextually appropriate approaches while contributing to global policy discussions.

## Conclusions and Future Directions

The networking session demonstrated both achievements and ongoing challenges of multi-stakeholder internet governance approaches. While there was strong consensus on fundamental principles such as inclusivity, transparency, and multi-stakeholder participation, significant disagreements remain on specific policy approaches.

The revelation of disagreements within the youth community challenged assumptions about generational consensus and highlighted the need for more nuanced approaches to youth engagement that acknowledge diverse perspectives rather than treating young people as a monolithic group.

Sandra concluded the session by encouraging participants to visit the joint booth with other NRIs and to reach out for deeper discussions on the topics raised. The session reinforced that internet governance remains a work in progress, requiring continuous adaptation to address emerging challenges while maintaining commitment to inclusive, transparent, and participatory approaches.

The diversity of perspectives represented – from youth participants to business operators to diplomatic representatives – demonstrated both the complexity of achieving consensus and the value of maintaining spaces for constructive dialogue across different stakeholder communities as the internet governance community prepares for the WSIS+20 review process.

Sandra Hoferichter: So, welcome to this session, nice to see you, I appreciate that you interrupt your lunch break in order to have a short networking session about EuroDIG this year. It was the 18th edition of EuroDIG, the 18th in a row, we have been to a different European country ever since every year, but this year we came back to where it all started from and that made it a very special session. Unfortunately, the Council of Europe will not join us today, they were supposed to be with us here, but the Deputy Secretary General had to go to another mission and had to be accompanied by those who agreed being here on stage today, so unfortunately, but I should submit my best greetings to you. You will see that over there and also at our booth we have our annual messages and as I said already, messages from Strasbourg number two, because messages from Strasbourg number one were drafted in 2008. Just to remind us all, EuroDIG was the forum that invented the concept of messages which was later on adapted by the global IGF and by many other local IGFs as well and if you want to have a hard copy, get one after the session over there, if you want to have two, get two or three, whatever. The overarching theme this year was not super creative because we recycled the overarching theme from last year which was so good, that was balancing innovation and regulation and because we were at the Council of Europe, we added safeguarding human rights. We found that was a good idea and safeguarding human rights is possibly something that is of great importance in these times. Of course, WSIS plus 20 review was one of the focuses in this year’s EuroDIG as it is here at the IGF and of course we have prepared our messages on the WSIS plus 20 review which we would like to briefly share with you but possibly not going too much into detail because this is subject to many other sessions here at the IGF and then we would also like to highlight one element of EuroDIG which is very close to our heart which is youth participation and Frances Douglas-Thompson, got it right, she was one of our YouthDIG participants this year and she has prepared an excerpt of the YouthDIG messages from this year’s YouthDIG. They met already the month before online, prepared for their participation in EuroDIG and YouthDIG. They had three days of hard work, discussion but also fun I hope at EuroDIG and then EuroDIG as the conference was of course also included. And then I hope we have a little bit of ten minutes, it’s only a 30-minute session, ten minutes of exchange with you on either what the two of our speakers, Thomas, our president and Frances, our YouthDIG participant are telling us or we have also prepared some guiding questions, let’s put it that way. But if you would like to engage with us on any other topic, we are very flexible here. And without further ado, I hand over to Thomas Schneider, Swiss ambassador, well known to most of you and president of the EuroDIG Support Association to share the WSIS plus 20 review messages. Thomas, I think you should stand up and I take your seat for the moment. I don’t have a seat, so it’s possibly better.

Thomas Schneider: So we need, you see, we are working on very low resources, so we share almost everything. Okay, so yes, Sandra has already said it. In addition to thematic sessions, of course, the EuroDIG community also cares about the architectural issues about global digital governance. And we had before already like community gathered voices from Europe, not just the EU or the governments or single stakeholders, but already for the IGF improvement discussion for the GDC, EuroDIG collected input. It was facilitated by a former UK government member by Mark Harvell, who is very good at this. And also with him, we spent some time gathering information or views from European stakeholders on the ongoing WSIS plus 20 process, review process. And of course, the outcomes are absolutely surprising in the sense that, first of all, everyone thinks that multi-stakeholder approach is fundamental to successfully finding solutions for all kinds of digital issues, and that the regional diversity, also the NRIs are key to actually bring in as many voices as possible into global processes. So we need global processes, you need regional processes, national processes that then are able to distill everything so that the variety of voices are able to be heard. Of course, the EuroDIG community thinks that the IGF is a fundamentally important platform for multi-stakeholder, global multi-stakeholder dialogue. It’s not a decision-making platform, but it is a decision-shaping platform. We have had many instances where new issues have come up at the IGF or EuroDIG or elsewhere, and then have then picked up by decision-making bodies like intergovernmental institutions, but also by businesses and so on. And of course, the request, what a surprise, is that the EuroDIG community thinks that we should now move from renewing the IGF mandate only on a 10-year basis, which is always difficult than to plan if it goes at the end of the 10-year phase. So it should be a permanent, the IGF should become a permanent institution that you don’t have to renew every 10 years like what is it now. And of course, another key element is that the WSIS plus 20 process should not be happening behind closed doors in New York among some diplomats, but it should be as open, as transparent, as inclusive, and also as diverse as possible. So this is a very clear message and there’s still, things are getting better, but there’s still some room for improvement. And another point is also that the IGF is not just about critical internet resources and domain names like it used to be, mainly, not only, but that was in the focus 20 years ago when it was created, the IGF has moved on, has taken on all the new relevant issues from AI to data governance to other things, and that this should continue, the ITU should be the place where new and emerging issues are discussed and first ideas, first perspectives of common opportunities and challenges should be developed. And just to say that, of course, we had an exchange with the European co-facilitator for the WSIS plus 20 process with Suela Janina, the Albanian perm rep in New York, and she’s also here around, so if you happen to see her, of course, you may also, again, pass on European messages to her. Thank you very much.

Sandra Hoferichter: Thank you very much, and I would suggest we invite for one intervention, one reply to what Thomas just said, or question, whatever you like. I come down with a microphone. You have a microphone? Fantastic. So, please, signal to that lady with a microphone if you would like to speak up. There is only a chance now. Yeah, thank you, Thomas. You said that you’re like… Please introduce yourself.

Hans Seeuws: I’ll introduce myself, Sandra. My name is Hans Seuss. I’m the business operations manager of .eu, so we operate a top-level domain on behalf of the European Commission. You mentioned earlier that you like messages to be picked up and also, in a way, by decision-makers and intergovernmental bodies. What is then one of the key topics that you would like them to see picked up in the very near future?

Thomas Schneider: From this year’s Euro, it’s not just one, it’s several ones. One, of course, that was all over the place was AI governance, human rights aspect data, how to deal with something like privacy in an environment where it’s very difficult to actually say what is private data, what is not private data. Another big… But we’ll get to that, is how to involve young people, not just in a dialogue, but also then in decision-making. You get the key points on a few pages here in this leaflet, of course, also online, so I recommend you to read it. I must have forgotten all the other eight or ten important points, so forgive me if I didn’t mention the ones that you care most. But yeah, it’s basically from human rights economic angles. Geopolitical discussions, of course, were also there, so it covered the whole range. Thank you.

Sandra Hoferichter: Thank you. And as I said, only one intervention, we give another chance after the contribution from Frances. Frances, please, go ahead.

Frances Douglas Thomson: Okay. So, yes. As Sandra rightly said, I am a youth digger, which means that I attended both the sessions online and also the sessions in person. We had three days. They were very youth-led. At all points, it was the youth who were saying what mattered to us, what was pertinent to us, and what were our stances on these issues. And I think in this short amount of time, what I really would like to focus on is where controversies lie. Yeah, I think it’s very easy as a young person to think that everyone in your network in Europe has similar ideas about things like content moderation digital literacy The role of generative AI and whether these things are good or bad and how we should regulate or not regulate Against these issues. And so this is what I am hoping to present today and then get your advice or opinions or Perspectives on these issues. So the first one we had five broad messages. I’m going to focus on two today The first one is about digital literacy. So we all broadly speaking a lot of digital literacy operates, right? So who decides on the syllabus for digital literacy and how do these issues get presented? so for example, do we see generative AI as something that’s necessarily a positive and Wholesale good for society and education. Is it as an assistant or is it actually something that? creates complacency within young students and means the skill sets they leave education with and Not nearly as good as they used to be doesn’t mean that young people aren’t aware of the sources of information like they used to be and the kind of Skills you got in things like history about learning where resources and sources come from is now eroded So we had different ideas about this and we didn’t come to any clear Agreement on what the syllabus looks like but just that the syllabus is incredibly important because the digital space is Increasing in How much it’s going to be part of young people’s lives and you can’t just not be in the digital space And so you must know how to engage with it in a way that’s sensible and be aware of the benefits and the risks So yeah, this is the first thing The second thing is on content moderation and this is what surprised me the most because myself and another sector or contingent of the The group of youth diggers when we were coming to discuss in our discussion and debate spaces before the euro dig Some of us said content moderation is great. We think that things like warnings bannings flagging information that is clearly misinformation is clearly deep fakes or is clearly inciting violence or is Harmful to us this should be very strictly dealt with and then another group said this is very worrying for us and this idea of very harsh stringent content moderation is worrying for freedom of speech freedom of expression and The capacity for young people and all people to be engaging with information of all different types So then this was very surprising to me And so what we did decide on was something that could be very good is if we had Increased how users on places like social media can Better understand where what they’re being given Comes from right so you can press maybe an information thing on the corner of your post and see why is the algorithm feeding me? This so that instead of passively sort of being led into echo chambers on social media You therefore have more of a conscious awareness as to why you’re being fed the things you’re being fed and then you can also Say actually I don’t want to see more of this or I do want to see more of this or even I want to see The other side of this if it’s a political issue or if it’s a fact and you doubt it Then can I see other sources that are also reporting on this topic? So that’s what we all agreed was good But yes we didn’t agree exactly what should be strictly banned and taken off and whether anything should be strictly taken off these online sites is The very point of social media and these online spaces to have anyone saying whatever they want and is that good if you can have a critical awareness and and then also you get into the Is it censorship and who decides what gets taken off and why and is there bias there? So yeah, that was another point that I think was very important the last thing I’d say is I very much agree with Thomas when he says that the European dialogue is a place where policy issues Informed right so decisions are not necessarily made but they are very much informed and the kind of content that I saw at Euro dig was so varied and so informative and things that I wouldn’t have been able to engage with if I hadn’t had gone and Topics that I hadn’t I wouldn’t have been able to Yeah Conceptualize in the way I can now if I hadn’t had been able to attend these panel discussions and being taken very seriously in the Process so yeah that I’m very grateful for and that’s all I would say Thank

Sandra Hoferichter: You very much Francis and I I think we all agree we could feel the enthusiasm that came out of this year’s you stick Cohort and we are very happy that we can offer this element in our program I would ask you know One intervention already, but as I said if you would like to have a greater conversation on what Francis just said Flag us and we will change our plans and continue on this one Please introduce yourself is it it’s on.

Audience: Okay. Thank you. My name is Thomas I’m a former youth delegate or youth digger for last year and I thought what you said about how some of the Conversations that you end up in there are quite interesting and how you didn’t realize that there are so many perspectives You know there’s always a counterpoint to your point and that is the whole point right you’re in a space where you get to debate these things with other engaged youth And then on a tangent point of what you you said Do you see food for youth on online? And it’s the is the overall policy goal to lessen time spent online for youth or do you think it is more about making sure that people or younger people get to see the Right or wrong type of stuff online Do you wanna make clarification point on that?

Frances Douglas Thomson: I think that’s a very good question So I guess you could rephrase it to be like is it quality or quantity? I think that the there was a session yesterday about social media bands, and this is also something we talked a lot about At the Euro dig and youth dig should you just get children off social media completely so that it’s zero time spent on these apps I think when we think about information pollution and What content you are consuming obviously the quality matters? That’s the well yeah the first thing, but what matters more. I mean I also think there’s a lot of youth voices I don’t necessarily. I think I’d be quite happy completely off social media to be honest and I Have very limited interaction with social media, but when we were talking with the youth voices What was so good about the youth dig was that you also met a lot of people who said that’s a crazy thing for much older Politicians and policymakers to be deciding on my behalf that suddenly I as a 15 or 16 year old Now I’m not allowed into these spaces which are meant to be open accessible and free democratic spaces and even if you know the content Isn’t always good some of the good content is life-changing for some people so of course you have this argument I think that was it’s a very good example of an issue that is yeah So multifaceted and has people who feel very strongly who are young about this issue And so yeah, I think It’s difficult to just say people can’t go on it at all I think time spent on it does matter because it’s an opportunity cost you’re not spending time doing other positive things like being outside

Sandra Hoferichter: But yeah Any other intervention or question in the back, please introduce yourself as well

Audience: I m from Geneva Macro labs University of Geneva also active with the program committee in junior where Geneva people say multilateralism is dead and At the same time we see governments Often don’t have a clue. So how can we fix this if we leave? internet policy Internet policy Technology regulation to governments that don’t want to talk to each other neither to us. How how can we fix? The issues that we are have at hand

Sandra Hoferichter: Thomas that’s possibly something you could take on

Thomas Schneider: Yes, first of all, I need to say that I’ve been working for the Swiss government now for 22 three something like this years and In all these years there has always been whenever we talked with the foreign ministry, but Geneva the UN is in a crisis It is in it has never not been in a crisis But of course, that’s one thing. But of course the crisis now is slightly more serious than earlier perceived crisis is so so but and And then it may sound silly but every crisis can also be a chance It can it may force you to to rethink a few things to try and do things differently so crisis, yes, but I wouldn’t say it’s dead or crippled or something and Things may change quickly. Also if a few people that are powerful in the world change sometimes Things can change but I think it is now also the time and this is also part of the UN 80 discussions the 80s anniversary What does not work How can we try and make things work? But of course if member states don’t agree Then they will not let the UN or the IT or whatever the UNESCO do anything and this is and this is why it is Even more important that in these institutions you do not just have the governments But you have the other stakeholders you have civil society business academia because they want things done And if their own government is maybe not constructive for whatever reason actually Constructive for whatever reason actually businesses and people are more constructive than Governments that have their own interest I say this as a strong defender of direct democracy because we have we have made not such bad experiences in in my country Yeah, and who knows what of course politicians are not most knowledgeable in average about digital issues But they are neither on space issues or on how a car works and so on and so forth It is important that if they are not Experts themselves that they have experts that they listen to and that the society discusses these things I hope that answers at least partially what you Asked thing.

Sandra Hoferichter: Are there any other fantastic

Janice Richardson: Yes, Janice Richardson, expert to the Council of Europe, at the Council of Europe we believe that active participation especially of young people is really important. Do you have any great ideas to get a lot more young people involved in the type of work that you’re now involved in?

Frances Douglas Thomson: That’s a very good question. I think Youthdig is an incredible example of youth participation and achieving. I would say that something like Youthdig takes people who might not necessarily have a background in something like internet governance, provides the opportunity for them to be involved because it provides financial assistance for travel, for accommodation, it provides a space for open dialogue that isn’t top-down. And I think that’s important because if you want youth to be able to clearly express what they feel and their opinions and their perspectives, then it can’t be top-down, it can’t be someone dictating to you what you ought to think or how you ought to feel about this or how you should conceive of these ideas. It should be bottom-up basically. And I think as well another way to involve youth is not only through something like Youthdig, but also just making sure that young people feel like they’re taken seriously in these spaces. And that’s what I found so surprising about Eurodig and Youthdig was that at all times our questions were very much always answered, taken seriously, even outside of the conferences and panel discussions, conversations with older experts were encouraged, and it all felt very, very nice. So I think schemes like Youthdig, making sure that it’s feasible in terms of economics, and then also making sure that this gets out there, right? So that people who have gone post it on LinkedIn so other people can press on it, sharing it through schools, just making sure that there’s an awareness there of these kind of schemes. And maybe also encouraging young people and giving them spaces in things like the European Parliament, so that they can understand how the Parliament works, how commissions work, how councils operate, and therefore know that these kind of topics are being talked about and have a seat at the table.

Sandra Hoferichter: Thank you. There’s a gentleman in the back.

Chetan Sharma: Hello. Am I audible? This is Chetan Sharma from Data Mission Foundation Trust India. I’d like to apologize at the outset. Some of the questions that I’m asking are very frank. In this age and time when we’re seeing one humanitarian crisis unfolding after another, one crisis just right next door from where we all are assembled in Ukraine, the Internet policy dialogues or the governance platforms have, what has been their role and contribution? I’d like to just know. As opposed to even some of the mainstream media that have played a humongous role in sensitizing communities and raising up the deep humanitarian issues, we had this opportunity to build an advocacy. We had an opportunity to build opinions because this is a much closer community. Sadly, it has not happened. Now, if this was not enough, then we seem to be not even receiving proper information or the information which is transparent, accountable. We have said, no, no, this seems to be fake, AI generated, et cetera, et cetera. This is happening even on many of the social media and on the Internet platforms. I’d like to ask, sir, what is your view on this and how is it that we can prevent further degradation which seems to be exaggerating the humanitarian crisis we already are in? Thank you.

Sandra Hoferichter: Is that question directed to one specific, to Francis or to Thomas? To Thomas or to both?

Thomas Schneider: Yes, it’s quite complex, the development that you describe, if I understand it correctly. And the answer is probably also not an easy one. In the end, yeah, we do have tendencies. I’ve been talking to Wolfgang Kleinwächter actually at the IJF in Riyadh. This is an old German friend of mine and he said that, yeah, he’s losing faith in the German people, in the American people, in democracy because you elect people that do not take the truth serious, that say A, today and B, tomorrow and so on. To some extent, we may be a little bit also victims of a success in particular here in Europe where we had some decades of peace and after the fall of the Berlin Wall, we maybe thought that now everything will be fine. But then people realized that working in a free competitive society is also hard. You have to struggle every day for paying your bills, for, I don’t know, competing with other people and so on. And you have lots of information, lots of media. They all struggle, also compete to survive economically. So that maybe at some point in time, people get tired of the freedom because in the Internet you could check everything where it comes from. But this takes time and if you work hard and are tired in the evening, you don’t want to be a good democrat and spend three hours informing yourself actually. So to some extent, it is a period where people maybe start forgetting the value of democracy, but also what it means, the work, the effort that it needs to keep a democracy, keep free and quality media alive. And then they are sometimes inclined to follow people that tell them, just follow me, you don’t have to worry, I will sort everything out for you, now it’s your turn. But I’m also a historian, so maybe I hope, and it has happened in the past, when people start believing simple answers by people that give them simple answers, things normally get worse. Unfortunately, some people suffer in these periods, but at some point in time people realize that the simple answers may not be the right ones. And then they will start fighting again for democracy, for freedom of expression, for quality information. So things come and go in ways and I think that also the gathering like this is, we just need to keep on fighting. We need to keep on fighting for good governance, for fairness in societies, for a public debate. Other people fight for other things. We should together fight for a society which is fair and balanced and free. So the fight will never stop. Those that think that once you have achieved something you can stop fighting, you will lose it because there are others that fight against it. So that’s a little bit of my recollection.

Sandra Hoferichter: You are not audible, gentlemen, without a microphone. And I must also say we are in the red timer now. Possibly you don’t see the timer, but I see it. We have a couple of seconds. Yes, so we give the last word to you. How are you perceiving the world and how do we turn it into a good one again? That would be interesting to hear.

Frances Douglas Thomson: Well, I just wanted to say on the topic you raised about humanitarian crisis and even war and conflict, at the EuroDIG there were quite a few sessions about conflict. And they were very important for policymakers, the private sector, and also NGOs and governments. We talked about drones, autonomous weapon systems. We had perspectives from the private sector about why they thought these should be used. We also had NGOs saying why there are serious ethical concerns and the use of these drones in current contemporary warfare. That was very important. Because then you have people of all different stakeholders discussing these issues and sharing why they are so concerned and the reasons for that. Then we had one about Internet and using Internet or taking away a country’s Internet and using that as a form of attack. This is weaponizing the Internet or lack of access to it and how that affects people and how that can create very bad humanitarian crises. And we also had one about, as you say, the proliferation of misinformation about war and humanitarian crises and how we can deal with that, how we can put in place regulation, different ideas about how people can come to know this image is fake and this is not actually a real picture from the scene. This is something that’s been generated. So I think these dialogues are very important for addressing issues in humanitarian crises and for addressing issues in conflict zones. And I don’t think that this is just a discussion. I think it actually impacts when people go away from these dialogues how they perceive this issue. So I think it does make a real change.

Sandra Hoferichter: Okay. Thank you very much. I feel it’s time to wrap up. We graciously got two more minutes of which one is already over. And since I have the mic, I have to say examples like Francis, but there are many others that are really the ones that are making us proud that we are actually going in the right direction in engaging youth. Just to let you know, for our call for application for youth, it was responded by 428, 29 applications. We had really struggled this year of inviting them, of paying the travel costs in particular for youth participants from countries that are a bit further away from Strasbourg, like Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, because flight tickets are just out of the space. So if there is someone in the audience who has deep pockets, it’s good invested here. It’s good invested in the next generation. So please help us to continue bringing up programs, not just the EuroDIG, but also in particular the YouthDIG. And thank you very much. Reach out to us. We have a joint booth with the other NRIs if you would like to have a deeper discussion on this. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Agreement points

Multi-stakeholder approach is essential for digital governance

Speakers

– Thomas Schneider
– Frances Douglas Thomson

Arguments

Multi-stakeholder approach is fundamental for solving digital issues, with regional diversity and NRIs being key to bringing various voices into global processes

EuroDIG addresses conflict-related issues including autonomous weapons, drones, internet weaponization, and misinformation in warfare, bringing together diverse stakeholders

Summary

Both speakers emphasize the importance of involving multiple stakeholders (governments, civil society, business, academia) in digital governance discussions rather than limiting participation to single stakeholder groups

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development | Human rights

Youth participation requires proper support and inclusive approaches

Speakers

– Frances Douglas Thomson
– Janice Richardson
– Sandra Hoferichter

Arguments

Youth participation requires financial assistance, bottom-up approaches, and ensuring young people feel taken seriously in policy spaces

Active participation of young people is important, and programs like YouthDIG should be promoted through schools and social media to increase awareness

EuroDIG was the 18th edition held at the Council of Europe in Strasbourg, focusing on balancing innovation and regulation while safeguarding human rights

Summary

All speakers agree that meaningful youth engagement in internet governance requires structural support including financial assistance, proper promotion, and creating environments where young people are taken seriously

Topics

Development | Sociocultural

IGF and similar platforms serve as important decision-shaping forums

Speakers

– Thomas Schneider
– Frances Douglas Thomson

Arguments

IGF should become a permanent institution rather than being renewed every 10 years, and should continue addressing emerging issues like AI and data governance

The focus should be on content quality rather than just time spent online, as complete social media bans may restrict access to valuable democratic spaces

Summary

Both speakers view internet governance platforms as valuable spaces for shaping policy discussions and decisions, even if they don’t make formal decisions themselves

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers advocate for inclusive, transparent, and participatory approaches to internet governance that go beyond traditional diplomatic or top-down processes

Speakers

– Thomas Schneider
– Frances Douglas Thomson

Arguments

WSIS+20 process should be open, transparent, inclusive and diverse rather than happening behind closed doors among diplomats

YouthDIG provides youth-led discussions where young people determine what matters to them and express their stances on digital issues

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development | Sociocultural

Both speakers see internet governance platforms as spaces that can constructively address contemporary challenges including conflicts and crises through multi-stakeholder dialogue

Speakers

– Thomas Schneider
– Frances Douglas Thomson

Arguments

Despite challenges with multilateralism and government knowledge gaps, crises can create opportunities for rethinking governance approaches

EuroDIG addresses conflict-related issues including autonomous weapons, drones, internet weaponization, and misinformation in warfare, bringing together diverse stakeholders

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights | Cybersecurity

Unexpected consensus

Content moderation complexity among youth

Speakers

– Frances Douglas Thomson

Arguments

There are divided opinions among youth on content moderation – some favor strict measures against misinformation and harmful content, while others worry about freedom of speech implications

Explanation

Frances expressed surprise at discovering significant disagreement among youth participants about content moderation, challenging assumptions that young Europeans would have similar views on digital rights issues. This unexpected division led to consensus on algorithmic transparency as a compromise solution

Topics

Human rights | Sociocultural

Democratic resilience requires continuous effort

Speakers

– Thomas Schneider

Arguments

Maintaining democracy and quality information requires continuous effort and fighting, as simple answers from authoritarian figures often lead to worse outcomes

Explanation

Thomas’s historical perspective that democracy and quality information require constant vigilance and effort represents an unexpected consensus point about the fragility of democratic institutions in the digital age

Topics

Human rights | Sociocultural

Overall assessment

Summary

The speakers demonstrated strong consensus on the importance of multi-stakeholder approaches, meaningful youth participation, and the value of inclusive internet governance platforms. There was also agreement on the need for transparency and openness in governance processes, and recognition that digital governance platforms can address contemporary challenges including conflicts and humanitarian crises.

Consensus level

High level of consensus on fundamental principles of internet governance, with particular strength around inclusivity, transparency, and multi-stakeholder participation. The implications suggest a mature understanding of internet governance challenges and broad agreement on democratic approaches to addressing them, though specific implementation details may still require further discussion.

Different viewpoints

Content moderation approach – strict vs. freedom-focused

Speakers

– Frances Douglas Thomson

Arguments

There are divided opinions among youth on content moderation – some favor strict measures against misinformation and harmful content, while others worry about freedom of speech implications

Summary

Within the youth community, there’s a fundamental split between those who support strict content moderation (warnings, banning, flagging of misinformation, deepfakes, and violent content) and those who view such measures as threats to freedom of speech and expression

Topics

Human rights | Sociocultural

Generative AI in education – beneficial tool vs. harmful dependency

Speakers

– Frances Douglas Thomson

Arguments

Digital literacy curriculum is crucial as digital spaces increasingly become part of young people’s lives, but there’s disagreement on how to present issues like generative AI

Summary

Youth participants disagreed on whether generative AI should be presented as a positive educational assistant or as something that creates complacency and erodes critical thinking skills like source verification

Topics

Sociocultural | Human rights

Social media regulation approach – time limits vs. quality focus

Speakers

– Frances Douglas Thomson

Arguments

The focus should be on content quality rather than just time spent online, as complete social media bans may restrict access to valuable democratic spaces

Summary

There’s disagreement between those who support complete social media bans for youth (zero time approach) and those who argue this restricts access to valuable democratic spaces, with the latter favoring quality over quantity approaches

Topics

Human rights | Sociocultural

Role of internet governance in humanitarian crises

Speakers

– Chetan Sharma
– Frances Douglas Thomson

Arguments

Internet governance platforms should play a stronger advocacy role during humanitarian crises, similar to mainstream media’s contribution to raising awareness

EuroDIG addresses conflict-related issues including autonomous weapons, drones, internet weaponization, and misinformation in warfare, bringing together diverse stakeholders

Summary

Chetan argues that internet governance platforms have failed to play adequate advocacy roles during crises like Ukraine, while Frances counters that EuroDIG does address conflict issues through stakeholder discussions on weapons, internet weaponization, and misinformation

Topics

Human rights | Sociocultural

Unexpected differences

Youth division on content moderation

Speakers

– Frances Douglas Thomson

Arguments

There are divided opinions among youth on content moderation – some favor strict measures against misinformation and harmful content, while others worry about freedom of speech implications

Explanation

Frances explicitly states this was ‘what surprised me the most’ – she expected youth to have similar views on content moderation but discovered fundamental disagreements between those favoring strict measures and those prioritizing freedom of expression

Topics

Human rights | Sociocultural

Diverse youth perspectives on digital issues

Speakers

– Frances Douglas Thomson

Arguments

YouthDIG provides youth-led discussions where young people determine what matters to them and express their stances on digital issues

Explanation

Frances found it surprising that youth in her European network had such different ideas about fundamental issues like content moderation and digital literacy, challenging assumptions about generational consensus on digital issues

Topics

Sociocultural | Development

Overall assessment

Summary

The main areas of disagreement center around content moderation approaches, the role of AI in education, social media regulation strategies, and the effectiveness of internet governance in addressing humanitarian crises. Most significantly, there are fundamental divisions within the youth community itself on key digital rights issues.

Disagreement level

Moderate to high disagreement with significant implications. The disagreements reveal deep philosophical divisions about balancing freedom versus safety online, the role of technology in education, and the responsibilities of governance platforms during crises. The unexpected youth divisions suggest that generational assumptions about digital consensus may be incorrect, requiring more nuanced policy approaches that account for diverse youth perspectives rather than treating them as a monolithic group.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers advocate for inclusive, transparent, and participatory approaches to internet governance that go beyond traditional diplomatic or top-down processes

Speakers

– Thomas Schneider
– Frances Douglas Thomson

Arguments

WSIS+20 process should be open, transparent, inclusive and diverse rather than happening behind closed doors among diplomats

YouthDIG provides youth-led discussions where young people determine what matters to them and express their stances on digital issues

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development | Sociocultural

Both speakers see internet governance platforms as spaces that can constructively address contemporary challenges including conflicts and crises through multi-stakeholder dialogue

Speakers

– Thomas Schneider
– Frances Douglas Thomson

Arguments

Despite challenges with multilateralism and government knowledge gaps, crises can create opportunities for rethinking governance approaches

EuroDIG addresses conflict-related issues including autonomous weapons, drones, internet weaponization, and misinformation in warfare, bringing together diverse stakeholders

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights | Cybersecurity

Key takeaways

EuroDIG successfully demonstrated the value of multi-stakeholder dialogue in addressing digital governance issues, with the 18th edition focusing on balancing innovation and regulation while safeguarding human rights

The IGF should transition from 10-year mandate renewals to becoming a permanent institution to ensure continuity and better long-term planning

Youth participation in digital governance is crucial and effective when properly supported through programs like YouthDIG, which received 428-429 applications demonstrating high interest

Digital literacy curriculum development is critical as digital spaces become increasingly central to young people’s lives, though approaches to teaching about technologies like AI remain contested

Content moderation presents a fundamental tension between protecting users from harmful content and preserving freedom of expression, with transparency in algorithmic content delivery emerging as a potential middle ground

Internet governance forums like EuroDIG serve as important ‘decision-shaping’ platforms that influence policy even when they don’t make formal decisions

The WSIS+20 review process needs to be more open, transparent, and inclusive rather than conducted behind closed doors among diplomats

Maintaining democratic governance and quality information requires continuous effort and vigilance, especially during periods of crisis and political polarization

Resolutions and action items

EuroDIG community formally recommends that IGF become a permanent institution rather than requiring 10-year mandate renewals

Messages from EuroDIG 2024 have been compiled and made available both in hard copy and online for stakeholders to reference and act upon

Continued promotion of YouthDIG program through schools, social media, and professional networks to increase youth awareness and participation

Seek additional funding sources to support travel costs for youth participants from distant countries like Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia

Unresolved issues

How to determine appropriate digital literacy curriculum content, particularly regarding the presentation of generative AI as beneficial versus potentially harmful

Where to draw the line on content moderation between protecting users and preserving freedom of expression

How to effectively engage governments that lack technical expertise in digital issues while maintaining multi-stakeholder participation

How internet governance platforms can play a more effective advocacy role during humanitarian crises and conflicts

How to address the broader crisis in multilateralism and democratic engagement that affects digital governance

Who should decide what constitutes misinformation or harmful content, and how to avoid bias in content moderation decisions

How to balance quality versus quantity of online engagement for youth

Suggested compromises

Implement transparency features that allow users to understand why algorithmic systems show them specific content, enabling more conscious engagement rather than passive consumption

Focus on improving content quality and user awareness rather than implementing blanket restrictions on social media access for youth

Combine strict content moderation for clearly harmful content (violence, misinformation) with enhanced user tools for understanding and controlling their information environment

Maintain both global and regional governance processes to ensure diverse voices can be heard while still enabling effective coordination

Yeah, I think it’s very easy as a young person to think that everyone in your network in Europe has similar ideas about things like content moderation digital literacy… And so this is what I am hoping to present today and then get your advice or opinions or perspectives on these issues.

Speaker

Frances Douglas Thomson

Reason

This comment is insightful because it challenges the assumption of generational homogeneity on digital issues. Frances reveals that even among European youth, there are significant disagreements on fundamental digital governance questions, particularly around content moderation and AI regulation. This breaks the stereotype that young people have uniform views on technology.

Impact

This comment shifted the discussion from presenting consensus youth positions to exploring nuanced disagreements within the youth community. It set up the framework for discussing controversial topics and invited audience engagement on complex issues rather than simple advocacy.

Some of us said content moderation is great… and then another group said this is very worrying for us and this idea of very harsh stringent content moderation is worrying for freedom of speech freedom of expression

Speaker

Frances Douglas Thomson

Reason

This reveals a fundamental tension within youth perspectives on one of the most critical digital governance issues. It’s thought-provoking because it shows that the traditional left-right political divide on content moderation exists even among digital natives, challenging assumptions about youth consensus on platform governance.

Impact

This comment deepened the conversation by introducing genuine complexity and controversy. It moved the discussion away from simple policy recommendations toward exploring the underlying tensions between safety and freedom that define modern digital governance debates.

In this age and time when we’re seeing one humanitarian crisis unfolding after another… the Internet policy dialogues or the governance platforms have, what has been their role and contribution?… We had this opportunity to build an advocacy… Sadly, it has not happened.

Speaker

Chetan Sharma

Reason

This is a provocative challenge to the entire internet governance community, questioning whether these forums are actually making a meaningful difference in addressing real-world crises. It forces participants to confront the potential gap between policy discussions and tangible humanitarian impact.

Impact

This comment created a pivotal moment in the discussion, forcing both Thomas and Frances to defend and contextualize the value of internet governance forums. It shifted the conversation from internal process discussions to fundamental questions about relevance and impact, leading to more substantive responses about how these dialogues address conflict and humanitarian issues.

To some extent, we may be a little bit also victims of a success in particular here in Europe where we had some decades of peace… people maybe start forgetting the value of democracy, but also what it means, the work, the effort that it needs to keep a democracy

Speaker

Thomas Schneider

Reason

This comment provides a profound historical and sociological analysis of current democratic backsliding, connecting it to complacency born from success. It’s insightful because it reframes current challenges not as failures but as consequences of previous achievements, offering a nuanced perspective on democratic fragility.

Impact

This response elevated the discussion to a higher analytical level, moving from immediate policy concerns to broader questions about democratic sustainability and civic engagement. It provided a framework for understanding current challenges that went beyond simple technological solutions.

Do you see food for youth on online? And it’s the is the overall policy goal to lessen time spent online for youth or do you think it is more about making sure that people or younger people get to see the Right or wrong type of stuff online

Speaker

Thomas (former youth delegate)

Reason

This question cuts to the heart of youth digital policy by forcing a choice between two fundamentally different approaches: time-based restrictions versus content-based curation. It’s thought-provoking because it reveals the underlying philosophical divide in how we approach youth protection online.

Impact

This question prompted Frances to articulate the complexity of youth perspectives on social media bans and parental controls, leading to a more nuanced discussion about agency, access, and the diversity of youth opinions on their own digital rights.

Overall assessment

These key comments transformed what could have been a routine policy presentation into a substantive exploration of fundamental tensions in digital governance. Frances’s revelation of youth disagreement on core issues challenged assumptions and invited deeper engagement. Chetan’s provocative questioning forced participants to justify the relevance of their work, while Thomas’s historical analysis provided broader context for understanding current challenges. The former youth delegate’s question about online time versus content quality highlighted practical policy dilemmas. Together, these comments elevated the discussion from procedural updates to philosophical debates about democracy, youth agency, content governance, and the real-world impact of policy dialogues, creating a more intellectually rigorous and practically relevant conversation.

What is one of the key topics that you would like them to see picked up in the very near future?

Speaker

Hans Seeuws

Explanation

This question seeks to identify priority areas from EuroDIG messages that should be addressed by decision-makers and intergovernmental bodies

Who decides on the syllabus for digital literacy and how do these issues get presented?

Speaker

Frances Douglas Thomson

Explanation

This addresses the governance and content of digital literacy education, particularly regarding how emerging technologies like AI are framed in educational contexts

Is the overall policy goal to lessen time spent online for youth or do you think it is more about making sure that people or younger people get to see the right or wrong type of stuff online?

Speaker

Thomas (former youth delegate)

Explanation

This question explores whether youth online safety policies should focus on quantity (time limits) versus quality (content curation) of online engagement

How can we fix internet policy and technology regulation when governments don’t have a clue and multilateralism appears to be failing?

Speaker

Audience member from Geneva Macro labs University

Explanation

This addresses the fundamental challenge of effective governance in digital policy when traditional multilateral approaches seem inadequate

Do you have any great ideas to get a lot more young people involved in the type of work that you’re now involved in?

Speaker

Janice Richardson

Explanation

This seeks practical strategies for expanding youth participation in internet governance and policy discussions beyond current programs

What has been the role and contribution of Internet policy dialogues or governance platforms in addressing humanitarian crises, and how can we prevent further degradation of information quality that exaggerates these crises?

Speaker

Chetan Sharma

Explanation

This questions the effectiveness of internet governance forums in addressing real-world humanitarian issues and the challenge of misinformation during crises

How to involve young people not just in dialogue, but also in decision-making processes?

Speaker

Thomas Schneider

Explanation

This addresses the gap between youth participation in discussions versus actual influence in policy decisions

How to deal with privacy in an environment where it’s very difficult to say what is private data versus non-private data?

Speaker

Thomas Schneider

Explanation

This highlights the technical and policy challenges of defining and protecting privacy in the context of AI and big data

Summary

This discussion centered on the launch of “NetMundial Plus 10,” a book containing multistakeholder guidelines that has been translated into the six official UN languages plus Portuguese. Rafael Evangelista from Brazil’s Internet Steering Committee opened the session by explaining that NetMundial Plus 10 represents a continuation of the original NetMundial process from 2014, resulting in the São Paulo Multistakeholder Guidelines designed to strengthen internet governance and digital policy processes.

Multiple speakers emphasized that NetMundial serves as a shining example of how the multistakeholder model can deliver concrete results in a timely manner, contrasting it with other forums that may deliberate for years without reaching consensus. Pierre Bonis from AFNIC highlighted how NetMundial addressed critical moments in internet governance history, including the post-Snowden era and the recent Digital Global Compact discussions. The collaborative editing process was particularly noteworthy, with participants describing intense online sessions where committee members from around the world simultaneously edited documents in real-time.

The translation process itself proved to be more than mere linguistic conversion. Speakers noted that translating these governance concepts into different languages required deep understanding of the field and collaboration with community experts rather than just professional translators. Jennifer Chung discussed the complexity of Chinese translation, involving coordination between different script systems and regional terminology variations. Valeria Betancourt emphasized that translation carries political dimensions and increases community appropriation of the guidelines by making them accessible in native languages.

Several participants stressed the practical application of these guidelines, particularly in the context of the upcoming WSIS Plus 20 review process. The book launch represents not just a publication milestone but a call to action for implementing these multistakeholder principles across various governance levels, from local to global contexts.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Book Launch and Multilingual Publication**: The primary focus was launching the “NetMundial Plus 10” book, which contains multistakeholder guidelines and has been translated into the six official UN languages plus Portuguese, making it accessible to a global audience.

– **Success of the Multistakeholder Model**: Participants emphasized how NetMundial and NetMundial Plus 10 serve as exemplary cases of effective multistakeholder governance that can deliver concrete results in a timely manner, countering criticisms that such processes are slow or ineffective.

– **Translation as Political and Cultural Process**: Speakers highlighted that translation goes beyond literal conversion, involving cultural adaptation and political considerations. The process required collaboration within language communities (e.g., different Chinese dialects and scripts) and helps increase local appropriation of governance principles.

– **Practical Implementation and Future Applications**: Discussion centered on putting the São Paulo Multistakeholder Guidelines into practice across various levels (local, national, regional, global) and using them to inform ongoing processes like the WSIS+20 review and national IGF initiatives.

– **Collaborative Process and Community Engagement**: Participants reflected on the intensive collaborative editing process that created the guidelines and emphasized the ongoing nature of the work, including invitations for additional translations and continued community involvement.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to officially launch the multilingual publication of the NetMundial Plus 10 statement and São Paulo Multistakeholder Guidelines, celebrate the collaborative achievement, and encourage broader adoption and implementation of these governance principles across different linguistic and cultural contexts.

## Overall Tone:

The tone was consistently celebratory, appreciative, and forward-looking throughout the session. Participants expressed genuine enthusiasm and pride in the collaborative achievement, with frequent expressions of gratitude and mutual recognition. The atmosphere remained positive and constructive, with speakers building on each other’s comments and emphasizing the collective nature of the work. There was no notable shift in tone – it maintained an upbeat, collegial spirit from beginning to end.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Rafael de Almeida Evangelista** – Board member of CGI.br (Brazilian Internet Steering Committee), session moderator

– **Pierre Bonis** – Representative from AFNIC (French registry)

– **Jennifer Chung** – Works for .asia (registry operator for the generic top level domain .Asia)

– **Valeria Betancourt** – From Association of Progressive Communication

– **Renata Mielli** – Member of CGI.br, involved in NetMundial Plus 10 organization

– **Everton Rodrigues** – Part of NIC.br team involved in the NetMundial Plus 10 process

– **Jorge Cancio** – From the Swiss government, involved in translation process

– **Akinori Maemura** – Member of the HLAC (High-Level Advisory Committee) for NetMundial Plus 10, also involved in NetMundial 2014 EMC

– **Vinicius W. O. Santos** – Part of the secretariat/NIC.br team for NetMundial Plus 10

– **Audience** – Identified as James Ndolufuye from Africa

**Additional speakers:**

None – all speakers who spoke during the session were included in the provided speakers names list.

# NetMundial Plus 10: Multilingual Book Launch and Implementation Discussion

## Executive Summary

This session focused on the launch of “NetMundial Plus 10,” a publication containing multistakeholder guidelines translated into the six official UN languages plus Portuguese. Moderated by Rafael de Almeida Evangelista from Brazil’s Internet Steering Committee, the discussion brought together international stakeholders to celebrate this achievement and examine its implications for internet governance.

Participants emphasized NetMundial’s effectiveness as a multistakeholder process that delivers concrete results efficiently. The conversation highlighted how translation involves more than linguistic conversion, requiring cultural adaptation and community collaboration. Speakers stressed the importance of implementing these guidelines in practice rather than treating them as static documents.

## Background and Context

Rafael Evangelista explained that NetMundial Plus 10 continues the original NetMundial process from 2014, which produced the São Paulo Multistakeholder Guidelines for strengthening internet governance and digital policy processes. The publication launch occurs one year after NetMundial Plus 10, with printed copies available for free and digital versions accessible at cgi.br.

The timing coincides with ongoing discussions around the Digital Global Compact and preparations for the WSIS Plus 20 review process. Pierre Bonis from AFNIC noted the post-Snowden context that influenced NetMundial’s development.

## Multistakeholder Model Effectiveness

Speakers consistently praised NetMundial as proof that multistakeholder approaches work. Pierre Bonis stated: “Sometimes people look at our model, at the multi-stakeholder model, saying, okay, that’s nice, but it doesn’t deliver anything. And NetMundial and NetMundial Plus10… you see that in four days, you get a consensus that is a solid one, that can last four years, as in other fora, you may talk for 10 years without having anything like that.”

Jennifer Chung from .asia described NetMundial as “a shining example that multi-stakeholder process works and produces tangible results,” emphasizing how the guidelines provide practical tools for improving multilateral processes. James Ndolufuye from Africa noted that “NetMundial process has become the conscience of information society regarding multi-stakeholder engagement.”

## Translation as Cultural Process

The discussion revealed sophisticated understanding of translation challenges. Valeria Betancourt from the Association for Progressive Communications explained: “Translation is not just a mere transposition, a literal transposition of specific content from one language to another. When doing the translation we are actually also expressing different views of reality, different perspectives… It’s not only a communication strategy… but for me it’s actually mostly an attempt to respond to the contextual realities of people, if we really want to be inclusive.”

Jennifer Chung detailed Chinese translation complexities, explaining how the team had to collaborate within the Chinese community because “certain terms are translated in different ways” and decisions were needed between traditional and simplified scripts, as well as different regional variations.

Pierre Bonis noted that “Internet governance concepts are better translated by field experts than general UN translators.” Vinicius W. O. Santos from NIC.br described their collaborative review process involving “multiple reviewers and field experts” working with professional translators.

The translation effort involved specific contributors including Lucien Castex (French), Manao, Christina Arida, Zena (Arabic), and Leonid Todorov (Russian). Renata Mielli from CGI.br observed that reading different language versions reveals “meaningful differences” and that “different language versions have distinct impacts and make more sense in specific contexts.”

## Collaborative Editing Process

Akinori Maemura, a member of the High-Level Advisory Committee (HLAC) for NetMundial Plus 10, described the “dynamic online editing process with global HLAC members” as a “remarkable collaborative experience” involving committee members from around the world simultaneously editing documents.

Jorge Cancio from the Swiss government characterized the process as “intensive and emotionally heavy but productive,” highlighting both the challenges and rewards of such collaboration.

## Implementation Focus

Jorge Cancio emphasized implementation responsibility: “It’s really in our hands to put them to work… if it’s just a piece of paper it will get forgotten in some years of time but if we put them to use… they will really gain some reality, they will inform what we do on a multi-stakeholder fashion at the different levels.”

He provided concrete examples, describing how the Swiss IGF is implementing the São Paulo guidelines and how his office uses the guidelines in German and French for internal discussions to ensure “bottom-up, open, inclusive” processes that “take into account asymmetries of power and influence.”

Valeria Betancourt connected the guidelines to the WSIS Plus 20 review, explaining how they “provide practical steps for making inclusion reality” and can increase representation of underrepresented communities. Jennifer Chung emphasized their relevance for capacity building in local communities.

## Ongoing Expansion

Everton Rodrigues from NIC.br emphasized the continuing nature of the project: “We had ongoing efforts in other languages as well, so please feel invited to send us those new translations to contact us also to make those translations available… the future of NetMundial is still ongoing.”

This prompted James Ndolufuye to offer translations into Swahili, Yoruba, and Hausa to “scale the approach across Africa.” The NetMundial Plus 10 website will credit new translations and make them available to the community.

## Conclusion

The session demonstrated strong support for NetMundial’s multistakeholder approach while emphasizing the need for practical implementation. The multilingual publication represents both an achievement in inclusive governance and a tool for ongoing work. Speakers committed to using the guidelines in their respective contexts, from local IGFs to international processes, ensuring the NetMundial principles continue to evolve through practical application.

The discussion highlighted how effective multistakeholder governance requires both inclusive processes and concrete outcomes, with NetMundial serving as a model for addressing complex governance challenges efficiently while maintaining broad stakeholder participation.

Rafael de Almeida Evangelista: Hello, good afternoon, everyone. It is a pleasure to welcome you to this launch session at the Open Stage. My name is Rafael Evangelista. I am a board member of CGI.br, the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee. This session is about the book launch, NetMundial plus 10, statement in the six UN languages. So I have here with me, helping me with the book launch, Pierre Bonis from AFNIC, Pierre, can you join us? Okay, Pierre. Thank you. Valeria Betancourt from Association of Progressive Communication, Valeria, she’s not here yet. Okay. Jennifer Chung from .asia, hi Jennifer, how are you? And Renata Mielli will join us later after her session ends. NetMundial provided an inclusive platform where relevant actors from all stakeholder groups and regions were able to convene, deliberate and reach consensus on a new set of guidelines and recommendations. These were designed to address the most pressing challenges facing governance processes in our time. The result of an extensive and collaborative process, NetMundial plus 10 culminated in the document entitled NetMundial plus 10, Mood Stakeholder Statement, Strengthening Internet Governance and Digital Policy Processes. This document is now being published within the CGI book series and it is available in the six official languages of the United Nations, in addition to Portuguese. This is the book that I’m showing here. One of the central outcomes of this process was the formulation of the Sao Paulo Mood Stakeholder Guidelines. These guidelines present a structured yet adaptable set of steps aimed at enhancing Mood Stakeholder practices across various digital governance decision-making contexts. By doing so, the NetMundial plus 10 ultimate outcomes contribute to fostering a more effective, inclusive and results-oriented model of Mood Stakeholder collaboration at the global level. The Sao Paulo Guidelines seek to strengthen governance processes by offering a flexible, inclusive and actionable framework grounded in principles of transparency, participation and adaptability, thereby reinforcing the legitimacy and effectiveness of Mood Stakeholder approaches. In light of the importance of disseminating these outcomes widely, this statement has been translated into multiple languages and compiled into a book available in both digital and print formats. Launching this publication at the Internet Governance Forum is a meaningful milestone, one that allows us to promote and discuss the NetMundial plus 10 results with a broader global community. This moment is particularly significant given that NetMundial plus 10 recognizes the IGF as a forum that ought to be further strengthened and as a central hub for Internet governance decisions. Today’s launch also serves as a timely opportunity for reflection and dialogue, making one year since the NetMundial plus 10 event. Our session will feature contributions from key stakeholders involved in the process, who will discuss the Sao Paulo Guidelines, the Mood Stakeholder statement and the challenges encountered in producing a multilingual publication of this nature. We are grateful for your presence here and engagement in this session. Printed copies of the book are available. Please feel free to request one if you have not received one yet. The digital version can also be accessed online at cgi.br. Thank you. I’ll hand out to our speakers. Perhaps Pierre can be the first one. Can you, please?

Pierre Bonis: Thank you. Obrigado. Thank you very much for welcoming us here. So it’s a little bit ironic because I’m going to speak in English. Because while we are presenting this work that I will talk about a little bit later, in the UN official language and Portuguese, this open space that is a very cool one is the one where you don’t have translation. So I will keep on speaking English. Just to share the fact that, first of all, having been invited by cgi.br and nick.br is always a pleasure. We are, at AFNIC, the French registry and we see the work that has been done by nick.br and cgi.br for years as a real example of a multi-stakeholder approach. And an inspiring one, really. Just want to share, of course we are happy to have been able to contribute to translate in French this document. But I want to testify of something that is very important to us. That NetMundial and NetMundial Plus10 are, I think, the best example of a multi-stakeholder approach that can deliver in a timely manner. And the timely manner is a very important point here. So we can be talking, and that’s always good to talk, to exchange, to dig more and more and more some subjects. But sometimes people look at our model, at the multi-stakeholder model, saying, okay, that’s nice, but it doesn’t deliver anything. And NetMundial and NetMundial Plus10, at two very important moments of the Internet governance, the first one, we remember it, it was after the Snowden thing, and just before the transition of the IANA function and the move of the American government and NetMundial Plus10, a few weeks before the adoption of the digital global compact emergency, we had to talk and to see if together, at a global level, we had something to say, to add to what we said 10 years before. The decision to bring all the stakeholders, lately, and CGI.br organized an online platform, very demanding, very efficient. And when you look at these three or four days of meetings in Sao Paulo that reached that point, you see that in four days, you get a consensus that is a solid one, that can last four years, as in other fora, you may talk for 10 years without having anything like that. So that’s why, and I will finish with that, that’s why we say, and that’s not just to be polite, even if we try to be polite, but when we say that your work is inspiring, it’s really inspiring, this way of delivering things has to be applauded, so thank you very much.

Rafael de Almeida Evangelista: Thank you Pierre for such nice words, and please, Jennifer.

Jennifer Chung: Thank you very much, well that is a very hard act to follow Pierre, I feel like we can just applaud and that’s it, we can just celebrate. My name is Jennifer Chung, I work for .Asia, and .Asia is of course the registry operator for the top level domain, the generic top level domain .Asia, we have a mandate to promote internet adoption and development and capacity building in Asia Pacific, so obviously when we’re talking about translation, we’re doing the Asian languages, specifically Chinese. But taking a half step back, and really echoing a lot of things that Pierre has mentioned, NetMundial and NetMundial plus 10 is really held up to be such a shining example of what works, what actually can be done right, with the multi-stakeholder process, with the multi-stakeholder model, and the fact that the entire community comes together and produces something so beautiful is testament to the fact that it actually works, and every time there are naysayers and criticisms about, oh, you know, multi-stakeholder process is messy, it’s slow, it doesn’t produce results, this is a result, it’s beautiful, it’s a book, six languages, amazing. So taking another step back as well, to look at the Thank you very much. So, I think the multistakeholder guidelines gives us a way to measure, to look at things with a critical eye, to actually make sense of when we’re talking about multistakeholder model, we’re not talking about one model, we’re not talking about a monolith. There are different ways to look at and measure and another important part is how can we improve the multilateral process and this actually tells us very much how we can do this. In fact, sitting here, you know, in UN IGF, UN itself is multilateral but the IGF is multistakeholder and that is the beauty of it, how we are able to work together in this kind of environment and this is one of the things that really allows us to look at it in a very critical eye. I guess I’m going to turn a little bit to the translation part which is why I’m here. The interesting part about my mother tongue, Chinese, is I actually have two because I speak Cantonese because I am from Hong Kong but I also speak Mandarin which is of course the official language, the official Chinese. The script itself is also quite interesting. We have the traditional script which looks a little more complicated because when you look at the character, oh, there’s a lot more lines and of course, there’s the official script which is simplified. So when we looked into the translation process, we really had to, even within the Chinese community, do a lot of collaboration because we find that certain terms are translated in different ways and to be as inclusive as possible, we had to consult with and coordinate and cooperate with many, many different friends. So it really isn’t just .Asia doing everything, it absolutely isn’t. So it’s .Asia, there’s friends from mainland, there’s Sienic friends, there’s also friends who understand the different terminologies that is used with the Chinese-speaking community around the world. So I guess I’ll stop here with a little bit of flavor and context of the translation and hand it right back to you.

Rafael de Almeida Evangelista: Thank you, Jennifer. We have here Valeria, she could make, and thank you for joining us and please, the floor is yours.

Valeria Betancourt: Apologies for being late, it’s just running from one session to another. I really value the opportunity to talk about my experience of assisting with the translation into Spanish, but before I dig into the specific issue, what I want to say is that, and I have been saying in different panels, that when we look back at processes that we engage in relation to shaping Internet governance and the governance of digital technologies in general, we not only remember the issues that were important for us, the people that we met, the collaborations that we established, we really remember how things happened, how the process was conducted. And I think this is at the core of the multi-stakeholder guidelines. These principles and these guidelines really help us to build different ways of running processes when it has to do with the application of the multi-stakeholder approach, not only to the conversations, but actually to the collaborations and to finding solutions, which I think help us to address specific problems, either acknowledging that there are different interests on the table, acknowledging that the dynamic of stakeholder engagement is not easy, but actually helping us to move beyond the simple dialogue and conversation which is essential and important to specific solutions to address the different and critical challenges that we face in order to crystallize the vision that many of us envisage of having governance that is inclusive, that is democratic, that is transparent, that is accountable. So all of that is at the center of these guidelines and the possibility to honor also the principles that were stated 20 years ago in relation to inclusivity in the information society, not only to sit in the different stakeholders on the table, but actually to be able to meet their interests and to respond to the realities that people face, acknowledging that the way in which tech is embedded in our lives is really rendering us in many different ways. So in relation to the translation, the translation is not just a mere transposition, a literal transposition of specific content from one language to another. When doing the translation we are actually also expressing different views of reality, different perspectives, so in that sense the translation in Spanish is not only an exercise and an attempt and an effort to expand the reach of the multi-stakeholder guidelines, but I think it is a very important effort to actually respond to the contextual realities that are needed in order to be able to make progress in democratic governance. So that’s the importance for me of having the multi-stakeholder guidelines, the Sao Paulo multi-stakeholder guidelines in different languages has to do with that. It’s not only a communication strategy, it’s not only the possibility for different people to be able to relate with the principles and the guidelines in their own language, but for me it’s actually mostly an attempt to respond to the contextual realities of people, if we really want to be inclusive, if we really want to be able to make progress in terms of democratic governance. So let me leave it like that for now.

Rafael de Almeida Evangelista: Thank you very much, Valeria. We have time for questions, yes?

Audience: Thank you. Greetings everybody. The process that took place about 11 years ago, the first Netmundia, of course those that can remember, you know it was like a conscience on the whole information ecosystem. So the Netmundia process has become the conscience of the information society vis-a-vis the multi-stakeholder engagement. So the process was great, before I forget, I’m James Ndolufuye from Africa, Africa. The process involved is really a case in point, and I’m so happy that this has been translated so that others can benefit from it. The scoping, the engagement, and the inclusivity across the region is exemplary, and we’ve been talking about this a lot in Nigeria, and government people have a dozen of it, but it’s like the reference point, and we are scaling it across Africa. And so we also offer to at least translate into Swahili, into Yoruba, into Hausa. So we will proceed with that initiative as well. Thank you very much.

Rafael de Almeida Evangelista: Thank you. Any more comments? Everton, please. I should say that this was possible because of the great team that we have on NIC.br, all those persons who were able to do in a timely manner, and Everton was one of those, and Vinicius was the other, and many other people. So all the NIC.br team, thank you Rafa.

Everton Rodrigues: Very quickly, just as a follow-up of what Jimson was mentioning, NetMundial, the success of NetMundial depends a lot on the future of what we did one year ago. So it’s a living experience. The process didn’t stop on those two days that we gathered in Sao Paulo. Part of that is also that the process of translation is still ongoing, so we are open to keep receiving those translations in other languages. The six UN languages are published here with the book, but we have ongoing efforts in other languages as well, so please feel invited to send us those new translations to contact us also to make those translations available. They will be credited on NetMundial Plus 10 website, so join the effort, because the future of NetMundial is still ongoing. Thank you very much.

Rafael de Almeida Evangelista: Thank you, Everton. We have here with us Jorge Cancio, who was also involved in the process of translation, and we will have a few words from him. Please, Jorge. Anything you want.

Jorge Cancio: Hello, everyone. I’m Jorge Cancio from the Swiss government. I’m very sorry that I was late. We had an open forum just discussing, amongst other things, how we can use the NetMundial Plus 10 and the Sao Paulo multistakeholder guidelines to inspire the different processes we have. It’s really in our hands, so it’s like the translations. We did one into Italian, and then our colleague, Titi Casa, really went on. document and especially the Sao Paulo multi-stakeholder guidelines, which are very close to my heart Not only because of the product but because of the process we had Before Sao Paulo and in Sao Paulo last year, which was really amazing very intense very very Heavy also in emotions, but very productive It’s really in our hands to put them to work. I think that’s the the most important part of them To them because if it’s just a piece of paper It will get forgotten in in some years of time but if we put them to use be it here in the dynamic coalitions be it in the best practice for our beard in the policy networks or be it in national and regional IGF’s they will really gain some reality, they will inform what we do on a Multi-stakeholder in a multi-stakeholder fashion at the different levels. So I really invite you wherever your responsibility lies Be it at the local at the national at the regional or at the global level To really use them to put them to work and to Bring back your feedback on what works what doesn’t work where we have to improve them and here in the IGF Which is like the caretaker of the Sao Paulo multi-stakeholder guidelines Thanks to the invitation of net munia plus 10. This is the place to then keep on evolving them and just Very small commercial on my side in that sense. We are trying to implement them For the Swiss IGF, so we have a role in the Swiss IGF we are part of a multi-stakeholder community there and now we are looking into how we use the Sao Paulo multi-stakeholder guidelines to make sure that the Processes that affect the Swiss IGF are really bottom-up open inclusive and take into account Also the the asymmetries of power and influence of the different stakeholders Which is the first guideline from Sao Paulo, so I’ll leave it by that. Thank you

Rafael de Almeida Evangelista: Thank You Jorge I’ll hand out the microphone to Renata Miele who was able to join us from another session Please Renata

Renata Mielli: Well, I’m sorry I was in another session first of all, thank you everybody for being here for our Book launching and What I’m going to say I’m going to say that I’m very very very Happy to see that the work we’ve done we in net mundial plus 10 It was a hard work We joined some Marvelous people in our Agalec the the committee the high-level committee that put the the net mundial Who organized and Helped to Deline all the discussions. We we’ve made in net mundial and Some are here with us now and in the IGF and it’s very very wonderful, there is no words to say how Amazing is to see when we are on workshop and see people in all the world Making reference to the net mundial stakeholder guidelines, you know in so What we try to do when we start this discussion on CGI.br Well, let’s do another net mundial. I think we achieve our goal and in I hope this guidelines can Impact on the future of the governance of the Internet and the governance of the digital world in a way that the mood stakeholder approach can be improved and applied in Everywhere, so thank you very much. I’m very happy with the result of our collective job because only in the collective we can achieve And Things that can be Have a real impact in the society. Thank you very much

Rafael de Almeida Evangelista: Thank You Renata any more comments I see people here who were involved in the process anyone want to comment anything no Jennifer please

Jennifer Chung: Just a quick comment, actually, I was gonna go straight to Akinori, I wanted to acknowledge that he is also on the HLAC and I’m sure he’s gonna talk about the translation

Akinori Maemura: Okay All right Okay. Thank you very much my name is Akinori Maemura one of the member of the HLAC for the net mundial plus 10 and then I am actually the net mundial 2014 I was involved in the EMC. So this is this is my second Fabulous experience to join this this party I’d like to share two things. One is that As the whole head said the process was great I I was so totally astonished by the editing process You know, do you can you imagine that the all HLAC member is in the zoom call and Then from all over the world editing the same that a single Google document to move ahead so a lot of castles are here and there and Editing and someone doing the some edition editing in in, you know a little bit, you know a Why are you saying that the sentence of the forthcoming sentences, so it is really dynamic that dynamic process to edit and then my brain is really sizzling to Catch up the discussion. That’s one one one one thing and then another thing is I I actually contributed for the the Japanese translation of the Of the net mundial plus 10 Statement and then it is it is, you know only, you know contributing for the Japanese community for You know better Understand what is net mundial plus 10 a statement and the guidelines are but it is for me it is very important that that statement is not only the statement, but it is it is it it is Get more valuable when it was utilized made use of in their own process, so I’d like to have it Utilized in Japanese some Some a multi-stakeholder process in in in the Japanese community So if if it is utilized like that, then the value of the this this document is more and more Tangible and then a substantial one. So what that’s two points of mine. Thank you very much.

Rafael de Almeida Evangelista: Thank you Vinicius please

Vinicius W. O. Santos: Thank you I’m Vinicius. I was part of the secretariat as they mentioned I won’t repeat many of the great sentences that you all already Brought to us here in this group, but just to add small comments related to the translation process itself we could just reach this result here this Book because we had a lot of help We needed and we had a lot of help from many people from these people here But also from other people that are not here exactly. For example, we had also Manao So just recognizing here Manao Christina Arida also Zena that were responsible for reviewing the translation to the Arabic We had the same for the Russian translator. We had a Collaborator as well his name Leonid Todorov that was also responsible for reviewing the the translation for us We had translators some some translations. It was really a collaborative process So we had some translations that were made from people here with us Also some translations made by by specific professionals hired for that but all the translations were reviewed by people of the field of this field here the internet governance community and people that were involved with the net mundial process and could Review the work and help us out with all the details because there are a lot of details and you know that So that’s it just to recognize these people and all this work because it’s a very complex and very very minimalistic work and we really need to be very Helped to to reach this kind of result. Thank you very much. That’s it

Valeria Betancourt: Thank you. Sure a very important comment that I want to make well I hope it is important But as many of you know, we are going through the plus 20 review of the World Summit on the Information Society and And I think this instrument that we have here, it has very practical and pragmatic steps and recommendations on how to make inclusion a reality. And I mention this because the opportunity that the PLAS-20 review of the WSIS present us is to precisely increase the representation of underrepresented views, perspectives, communities, and stakeholders. And I think if we really want to achieve the WSIS vision and to make progress in terms of a digital future with dignity and justice, it cannot happen if we don’t really in practice at all levels, national, regional, local, global, increase the representation of perspectives that have been overlooked or because of different reasons are not present here as they should be. So I think this is a powerful instrument for us to use in order to make sure that those voices, perspectives, and realities are taken into consideration as part of the review. So we actually can move towards a future that is truly more inclusive. Thank you.

Rafael de Almeida Evangelista: Pierre?

Pierre Bonis: Yeah, thank you. If I can add a few words because I was so thrilled by the process that everyone talked about that I almost talk about that only, but on the translation process in French. So first of all, I want to thank Lucien Castex because it has been a work to read the translation that we asked to a professional translator. And in that process, I think we see in this document that the concept of the Internet governance are better translated that for instance, the official translation that we can find even in the UN system. Because when you had the WSIS for instance, the translation of the Geneva Declaration and Agenda of Tunis was made by very competent translators from the UN system, but not from the field. So now if you look at the words, at least in French, there is a new translation of IG concept that is closer to the field that it was before. So maybe it gives an idea for the next WSIS plus 20 process to ask some of the community of the multi-stakeholder community to read the official translation of the UN before they are published. Maybe it will be more understandable later, but anyway, thank you to have given us this opportunity to do it. And once again, thank you to Lucien who have done that brilliantly in French.

Rafael de Almeida Evangelista: Thank you. Thank you. Jennifer, please.

Jennifer Chung: Thank you so much. Just very briefly because of what Akinori and Valeria said about going through the WSIS plus 20 process and actually this is a good time to use and actually kind of enshrine these principles, these guidelines into the input. And I wanted to take up on specifically on translation because of language. Because we are, when we live and breathe internet governance and multi-stakeholderism, we live and dream it, we are able to actually translate it into our native languages and this actually helps us with capacity building in our own communities for them to understand these concepts so they too can be leveled up to be able to substantively input into the WSIS plus 20 process. So this is such a valuable undertaking and thank you again CGI, WPR, Renata and all of those, I’m looking around, I don’t see them anymore, Everton and Vinicius and all of, oh there you are, to actually do this, to enable us to have this resource so we can uplift our own communities. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Rafael de Almeida Evangelista: We thank you, Jennifer. People are saying to me that I have to say to you that the copy of this book is free so please pick up one of these. We have some on our booth as well on the CGI.br but I think there are many on the tables, on the chairs and anything, anyone wants to add some more comments or from the audience? We still have five minutes, I want to ask you a question if you allow me. Is there anything in the process of translation that made more clear to you or made more important to you some of the principles that are in this book? I know that the process of translation is always a process of rethinking, reflecting on the text. So if you have something on your mind. Jorge told us about power imbalances, which is very much addressed in this book. So please.

Valeria Betancourt: I can say something, obviously as I mentioned earlier, translation, it’s also permeated by politics, your politics, your understanding of processes of existence, of issues, of problems, of your own reality, all of that is also translated into the exercise of translating content. So in that sense I think the fact that we have the NetMundial principles in different languages, it also increases the level of appropriation. And appropriation of the instruments that we have at the moment, whether they are frameworks of principles, whether they are guidelines, whether they are set of policies or practices, whatever the instrument it is, the possibility to relate with those instruments on your own language I think increases the possibility or appropriate them in a way that is meaningful. And only by being meaningful we can engage with the governance arrangements that could respond to the challenges that we face in a way that really means something for the different groups and realities. So that is what I want to highlight in terms of the translation. It’s not exempt of those politics and the political dimension that the processes have, particularly if they have to do with the governance of digital technology. Thank you.

Rafael de Almeida Evangelista: Renata?

Renata Mielli: I want to make a comment, not about the translation process, but about the importance in having the guidelines in different languages. When I’m going to discuss the NetMundial plus 10 guidelines with Spanish people, I don’t read the guidelines in English or in Portuguese. I look for the guidelines in Spanish because I can see the difference in the impact that the very specific language has in the translation. So for us, it’s amazing to see that. When I’m going to talk about in English, I go to the English version because it’s different for the Portuguese. And the other day I made a meeting and I talked about NetMundial plus 10 for Brazilian people. And I didn’t read the Portuguese version until that moment. And I saw differences that make more sense in Portuguese. So for us, it’s also important to have this book in all these languages. It’s very interesting and an education process for me.

Rafael de Almeida Evangelista: Jorge?

Jorge Cancio: Yeah, perhaps a similar example. We were having a discussion in the management board of my office, where we were talking about a process, a procedure that was rather internal, but that had some elements of needing inclusion and openness. And it was super handy for me because I could refer to the text, to the process steps, both in German and in French, because normally it’s the languages we work in, we discuss. And it has a completely different impact for my colleagues who are not used to work in English, so that I could show them, indicate them the text I was referring to in German or in French.

Rafael de Almeida Evangelista: Thank you. Thank you. Any more comments? I think our time is over. So please, Renata, do you want to say something?

Renata Mielli: No. I want to say, don’t go. Let’s take a picture with everybody who is here from the HLAC before closing the session.

Rafael de Almeida Evangelista: Okay. So let’s make a picture. But thank you all for attending this presentation, and please pick up a copy of the book. Thank you. Thank you.