Uncategorized

Summary

This panel discussion at the Internet Governance Forum in Saudi Arabia focused on fostering inclusive digital innovation and transformation. The panelists, representing organizations like UNDP, Italy’s Digital Agency, and the World Federation of Engineering Organizations, explored challenges and strategies for ensuring digital inclusion globally.

Key themes included building digital capacity, developing digital public infrastructure, and addressing inequalities in access to digital technologies. Robert Opp from UNDP highlighted their work in over 125 countries on digital strategies, emphasizing the need for capacity building among policymakers and civil servants. Mario Nobile shared Italy’s progress in digital public services, stressing the importance of digital literacy programs. Gong Ke discussed the crucial role of engineering capacity, particularly in AI, and the need for tailored platforms in different regions.

The discussion touched on specific initiatives like UNDP’s collaboration with Kenya on AI skills for civil servants and the World Federation of Engineering Organizations’ program to train 100,000 African engineers in AI. Panelists emphasized the importance of human oversight in AI implementation and the need for ethical considerations in technological advancement.

Audience questions raised issues such as the potential for a UN declaration on AI ethics, the role of parliamentarians in digital transformation, and strategies for connecting underserved communities. The panel concluded by highlighting recent UN initiatives like the Global Digital Compact and ongoing discussions on international AI governance, emphasizing the need for collaborative efforts to ensure inclusive digital development worldwide.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– Challenges and strategies for inclusive digital transformation, including capacity building, infrastructure development, and policy frameworks

– The role of digital public infrastructure (DPI) and digital literacy in fostering inclusion

– Addressing inequalities and reaching marginalized populations through digital initiatives

– The need for international cooperation and governance frameworks around AI and digital technologies

– Balancing innovation with ethical considerations and human rights protections in the digital space

The overall purpose of the discussion was to explore ways to promote inclusive digital innovation and transformation globally, with a focus on addressing inequalities and building capacity across different regions and sectors.

The tone of the discussion was largely constructive and solution-oriented. Panelists shared insights and examples from their respective areas of expertise, while audience members asked thoughtful questions that expanded the conversation. There was a sense of urgency around the rapid pace of technological change, balanced with optimism about the potential benefits of digital transformation if implemented inclusively. The tone became more specific and action-oriented towards the end as panelists responded to audience questions about concrete initiatives and next steps.

Speakers

– Tsvetelina Penkova: Member of the European Parliament, Vice Chair of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy

– Robert Opp: Chief Digital Officer of UNDP

– Mario Nobile: Director of the Agency for Digital Italy

– Gong Ke: President of the World Federation of Engineering Organizations

– Audience: Various audience members who asked questions

Additional speakers:

– Abdullah al-Zawahir: Minister of Communication and Information of Saudi Arabia (mentioned but not present)

Expanded Summary of Panel Discussion on Inclusive Digital Innovation and Transformation

Introduction:

This panel discussion, held at the Internet Governance Forum, brought together experts from various international organisations to explore strategies for fostering inclusive digital innovation and transformation globally. The panellists, representing entities such as the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), Italy’s Digital Agency, and the World Federation of Engineering Organizations, delved into the challenges and opportunities presented by digital technologies in promoting equitable development.

Key Themes and Discussion Points:

1. Digital Inclusion and Capacity Building:

The panellists unanimously agreed on the critical importance of digital literacy and capacity building across all sectors of society. Robert Opp from UNDP emphasised the need for broad-based digital literacy programmes, highlighting UNDP’s digital programs in over 125 countries. Mario Nobile, representing Italy’s Digital Agency, stressed the role of digital literacy as a cornerstone for the adoption of digital services. Gong Ke, from the World Federation of Engineering Organizations, focused on the importance of engineering capacity building, particularly in developing regions.

The discussion revealed different approaches to digital literacy and capacity building. While Opp advocated for a wide-ranging approach across sectors, Nobile emphasised literacy for digital service adoption, and Gong stressed engineering capacity building in developing regions. This diversity of approaches underscores the multifaceted nature of digital inclusion challenges.

An audience member suggested that the UN create common platforms to unify efforts in digital literacy, inclusion, and engineering capacity building. This proposal sparked a discussion on existing UN initiatives and the challenges of coordinating global efforts in digital development.

2. Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI) and Governance:

The concept of digital public infrastructure emerged as a crucial element in fostering digital transformation. Robert Opp introduced DPI as the “digital roads and bridges” necessary for digital development, typically initiated by governments but often implemented and operated by the private sector. He also mentioned the Universal Digital Public Infrastructure Safeguards Framework launched by the UN.

Mario Nobile shared insights from Italy’s experience in developing digital public infrastructure building blocks, highlighting the complexity of implementing digital transformation across a large, diverse governmental system comprising 23,000 public administrations. He provided specific numbers on Italy’s digital initiatives, including 36 million digital identity users, 2 billion e-invoices processed annually, and a budget allocation of 6.7 billion euros for digital transformation.

The rapid pace of AI development raised concerns about governance frameworks. Mario Nobile suggested the need for adaptive governance approaches, while Gong Ke emphasised the importance of tailoring digital platforms to local contexts and languages. Gong also mentioned the UNESCO recommendation on AI ethics and the upcoming UN AI office.

3. Challenges of Digital Transformation and AI Implementation:

The discussion highlighted several challenges in achieving inclusive digital transformation. Tsvetelina Penkova, Member of the European Parliament and Vice Chair of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, raised concerns about the risk of deepening inequalities through the digital divide. Audience members pointed out infrastructure and funding challenges for digitalisation in developing countries, particularly in low-income and conflict-affected regions.

Gong Ke emphasised the need to tailor digital platforms to local contexts and languages, recognising the diversity of user needs across different regions. He also discussed challenges in AI implementation, including the need for human oversight and the potential for misuse.

4. Public-Private Partnerships for Digital Development:

The importance of collaboration between public and private sectors emerged as a recurring theme. Robert Opp highlighted UNDP’s partnerships with the private sector for digital skills training, including a center of competence on AI and digital skills for civil servants in Kenya. Mario Nobile shared Italy’s public-private model for digital service delivery, while Gong Ke stressed the need for collaboration across sectors to support digital adaptation.

Specific Initiatives and Examples:

The discussion touched on several concrete initiatives, including:

– UNDP’s collaboration with Kenya on AI skills for civil servants

– The World Federation of Engineering Organizations’ programme to train 100,000 African engineers in AI over 10 years

– Italy’s digital transformation initiatives, including e-invoicing and digital identity systems

Audience Engagement and Questions:

Audience members raised several thought-provoking questions and suggestions, including:

– The potential for a UN declaration on AI ethics, similar to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

– The role of parliamentarians in digital transformation

– Strategies for connecting underserved communities

– The need for ongoing, rather than one-off, digital literacy programmes

– Approaches to taxing AI tools and systems, as suggested by Mario Nobile

– Questions about Egypt’s involvement in digital initiatives

These questions led to discussions on existing UN initiatives like the Global Digital Compact, which is part of the UN’s Pact for the Future, and ongoing deliberations on international AI governance.

Conclusion:

The panel discussion highlighted the complex and multifaceted nature of inclusive digital transformation. While there was broad agreement on the importance of digital literacy, capacity building, and public-private partnerships, differences emerged in the specific approaches and emphases of the speakers. The discussion underscored the need for tailored solutions that consider local contexts, while also working towards global standards and governance frameworks.

Unresolved issues included how to effectively address the digital divide in low-income and conflict-affected regions, whether new declarations or amendments to existing human rights frameworks are needed to address AI impacts, and how to ensure digital literacy programmes are ongoing rather than one-off projects.

The overall tone of the discussion was constructive and solution-oriented, with a sense of urgency around the rapid pace of technological change balanced by optimism about the potential benefits of inclusive digital transformation. The panel concluded by emphasising the need for collaborative efforts to ensure inclusive digital development worldwide, setting the stage for continued dialogue and action in this critical area of global development.

Tsvetelina Penkova: Perfect. Good morning, everyone. Good morning to the distinguished guests, panelists and participants in a very important debate we’re going to have this morning on fostering inclusive digital innovation and transformation. We’ve touched upon some of those topics in the previous session and now we’re going to continue this debate in that. So it’s a privilege to welcome you and to begin this event today here at the Internet Governance Forum in Saudi Arabia. So it is a good reminder, those discussions, that the Internet is not just a tool for us, but it’s a space where societies can come together, can foster innovation, promote equality and actually make sure that inclusion is part of our priorities. Of course, digital transformation is a powerful tool to reshape our world, brings unprecedented opportunities to innovation, growth and connectivity. However, this progress does present significant challenges, most notably the risk of deepening inequalities. So on one hand, digital technologies are reshaping industry and unlocking economic growth, driving global connectivity and ensuring competitiveness of our economies. But on the other hand, we can see how they can drive a lot of inequalities among societies. So entire communities, even now, as we speak today, they do lack access to Internet, the digital literacy is at a low level, or the necessary resources to participate actively and meaningfully in this transformation. transformation are not existing. So if we don’t address these gaps, we risk to create a world that’s even more divided. And I’m just going to refer to this key message that was also posed by the Minister of Communication and Information of Saudi Arabia, His Excellency Abdullah al-Zawahir, at his opening remarks at the ceremony yesterday, where he put a strong emphasis on the division when we speak about the digital economy as we see it now. So one of our key goals going forward should be to start working towards diminishing those gaps. If we can, of course, completely remove them, that’s going to be a great success. It’s a great pleasure to introduce the distinguished speakers we have here for this panel today, starting from my left with Mr. Robert Opp, the Chief Digital Officer of UNPD. So he’s going to provide us some insights on the global development priorities and digital innovations. On the other side of the table, we have Mario Nobile, the Director of the Agency for Digital Italy. I’m sure he’s going to bring a lot of expertise on how the public administration, digitalization in Italy is working and what are the challenges we face there. And next to me, we have Mr. Ke Gong, the President of the World Federation of Engineering Organizations. So he’s going to offer the perspective and the intersection of the engineering and artificial intelligence for global benefit. In the previous panel, we’ve also heard how insightful it is to have the experts’ views when we’re discussing some of the policies on the digital matters. So without further ado, I would start with my first question, which also… gives you the opportunity to have some opening remarks, but let’s make it a bit more dynamic. My first question is going to be to Robert. So in UNDP, you strongly promote inclusive digital development, which is, of course, the topic of our debate. You’re speaking about that that inclusion at both local and more global level. So could you actually give us an example of how you are actually trying to assist countries in their specific needs when we’re speaking about digital transformation, digital inclusions, and what support can be provided by the Members of Parliament in the various parts of the world, and what do we expect from us? It’s too many questions in one, but I’m sure you have a lot of insights to share with us.

Robert Opp: Thank you very much, and it’s a pleasure to be here. And yeah, that’s a lot of questions, but there are a lot of complex issues out there that as parliamentarians you all face right now. And in fact, I would just say in globally speaking, and the United Nations Development Program, who I represent here, is actively working in 170 countries worldwide. We have digital programs, digitalization programs in over 125 of those countries, and we are also working with one in three parliaments in the world. So what we see globally is a very strong pattern emerging around digitalization, and the pattern includes things in terms of where we hear expressions of or requests for support from countries are in a few different areas. One of those areas is how do we put in place the policies and the strategies for digitalization? And in 53 countries around the world, we’ve worked on national digital ecosystems evaluation and action planning. So looking ahead at where countries want to go, what are the steps to get there, what are the policies and strategies you need to guide that digitalization movement. The second area is in the space of technology. What are the layers of technology I need to put in place? And we sometimes talk about digital public infrastructure, which I know some of the other panelists are going to mention, but digital public infrastructure is that sort of digital roads and bridges that need to be put in place, usually put in place at the instigation of government, but often implemented itself by private sector and operated by private sector. And what we see is that that can have a very strong impact in terms of accelerating digital public services and accelerating digital economies as well. And then the third area that we hear from countries is around capacity. What are the capacities, digital capacities or capacities to work on digitalization that are necessary to really allow us to take advantage of the powers of technology and mitigate the risks of technology? So we work across all of these areas in many different countries. And I would say that what we hear also from the parliamentarian side is that there are similar challenges. So we hear from government, there’s capacity challenges, uncertainty around policies and strategies, etc. But from parliaments, we also know that there is a challenge in parliamentary capacity because parliamentarians need to also understand the shifts of digitalization, stay ahead of those shifts. We have begun to work in areas like promoting information integrity around, whether it be in general or around electoral processes, preventing online violence, which is a big challenge in many countries. And also looking at the capacity to legislate and oversee the digitalization changes that are happening. So we’ve been very pleased, we have been working with the Inter-Parliamentary Union for a number of years on many different initiatives, but we’ve also recently created an experts group that will look specifically at these capacity challenges for parliamentarians and start to work to build capacity of parliaments around the world to really be able to support the acceleration of digitalization, which we feel has tremendous potential for building human development over time.

Tsvetelina Penkova: Thank you. Thank you, Robert. You’re actually going one step back in the analysis, which is very key because we cannot be promoting or regulating matters if there is a lack of capacity in terms of the regulators. I’m going to have a few follow-up questions to you, but let me first go back to Mario so he can give us a bit more perspective from the agency side. How do you see all those matters? I’m not going to repeat the problems, the question is very clear. How does it work within the agency? What are the challenges you’re facing? And what’s the speed we can actually expect for a proper digital inclusion and transformation in Italy, especially taking into account that you have some quite outermost regions in Italy as well. How are you dealing with that challenge to reach everyone?

Mario Nobile: We have 23,000 public administrations in Italy, local central health services, so it’s very difficult. Thank you. As Director General of the agency, our mission is to drive digital transformation across the nation, and this mission is executed through various strategic tools and initiatives. One of them is the three-year plan. Now, talking about three years, it’s a long time. Now we are talking of months, artificial intelligence, new services, but we have this kind of strategic plan and in 2023, with this plan, the ICT spending in Italy was worth 7 billion euros. 3.3 for central public administration, revenue agency, national welfare institute and so on, 1.6 for local administration, so regions, municipalities and so on, and 1.6 for digital health services, remaining 0.5, last but not least, for education services. This is about 0.64% of the Italian GDP. Our ICT spending is worth it. And the agency, I go to the answer to your question, the agency oversees and ensures the quality of various building blocks of the Italian digital public infrastructures. Laid down by the government to accelerate development and used by different service providers, we have the private sector, but also the single citizen. Some numbers, in Italy we have 59 million citizens, but we have 40 million users of digital identity services. We have 18 million users of certified email, an email to send and receive with legal validity. We have 45 million qualified certified certificates of signature, the digital signatures. On the payment layer, we have PagoPiA for payments towards the public administration and in November 2024, PagoPiA had 34 million transactions with a total value of €7 billion. We have a platform for interoperability from municipality to region to central administration and at November 2024, we have 7,500 public organizations on board. Last but not least, we have an e-invoicing platform, our Italian Revenue Agency smiles because every invoice, business to business, business to government, business to citizen is in electronic format. These building blocks are the enablers for every digital services, artificial intelligence and other services. So these services are mainly delivered through a public-private partnership model where the agency role is to monitor and guarantee the quality of services provided by service provider and we issue guidelines to administrations and companies to steer the development of innovative and inclusive services. Notable examples include the guidelines on accessibility for public administrations and companies. And in conclusion, I would like to highlight the citizen inclusion. It is a best practice demonstrating the Agency’s commitment to digital inclusion and technological literacy. This project provides various tools to public administrations and private entities to improve the quality and accessibility of digital products, services and content. It aims to enhance the accessibility of public digital services in line with European directives. This project is part of the National Recovery and Resilience Plan with a budget of 80 million euros. Thank you.

Tsvetelina Penkova: Thank you, Mario, I forgot to say a few words about myself before we started the session. I’m a member of the European Parliament and the Vice Chair of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, but I’m also coming from Bulgaria. Listening to Mario, he did remind me about something. We also have a digital administration which is trying to work. Unfortunately, a lot of people are discovering that it works well only when it comes to collecting taxes or fees, not when it comes about providing services. So I will come back to you after with a follow-up question, probably on the digital literacy and how you are ensuring that. All the numbers that you have told us, they seem quite reassuring. It’s just we want to make sure that really it reaches for everyone and it’s for the benefit of our citizens, not only for the governments and administrations. And now, so I want to have… have all the points, all the viewpoints to our debate. So we’ve heard from the UNDP, we’ve heard from the agency and an example from a country like Italy, which is very big. And now let’s go to one of the very key aspects. And how does it work with the industry? Like how do you ensure that what we have in terms of technological development, innovation, is ensuring to address some of the global challenges like poverty, inequality, economic growth? And I’m turning to you, Mr. Gong, because I know that you are an expert in the field and you can give us some real example if that works. And where can probably we a bit more of support from our side, from the public sector as well?

Gong Ke: Thank you. Thank you so much. I think this year’s IGF is one of the important international events after the United Nations adopted the Pact for the Future and the Global Digital Compact. So it’s my great honour to be part of this very important event and to address a very important theme that’s promoting inclusiveness in the digital transition. So based on our observation, our, I mean, the Chinese Institute of Artificial Intelligence Development Strategy, based on our observation to the development of digitalization in China, we find that the two strategies are very, very crucial. First, from the supply side, it is a key measure to providing open, accessible platforms. to ease the adaptation of digital technologies, including artificial intelligence. And this platform in the form of public cloud services, in the form of open source communities. So this platform linking developers, users, investors, and managers to support collaboration across government, private sector, academia, and civil society, and individual users by providing pre-trained fundamental models, providing standard datasets, providing computer powers, and technical training in an open and scalable way. And very crucially, that platforms should be tailored to local context. Even in China, this is such a big country, we have a different part with different economic development level. So we should tailor to this, to different parts, the local needs, and we have different languages. Also in China, we have official Chinese, but also different dialects. So to cope with different languages, cultural norms, and digital capacities. So that is very important to the ease of adaptation. The second, from the demand side, we need to build capacity with emphasis on developing regions. So when we talk about inclusiveness, that requires proactive investment to human resources. particularly in the global south and in those less developed regions. So, because they do have a lot of barriers, so digital literacy, the lack of investment, lack of financial tools, and so on and so forth. So, I think that is the way the United Nations’ Pact for the Future focuses on equitable development and digital inclusion. And I think the United Nations Resolution adopted in July, titled Enhancing the International Collaboration for Building Capacity of Artificial Intelligence, offers a guideline for these capacity-building activities. So, I think the engineering capacity is a very important content in the capacity-building, because it is engineers to use the technical method, scientific theory, in the specific social, environmental, financial conditions to solve the problem. So, we have to increase the engineering capacity, especially for the less developed regions, to enhance the capability of problem-solving. So, because of the limitation of time, I just stop here. Thank you.

Tsvetelina Penkova: Thank you, thank you, Mr. Gong. Very insightful comments, in terms of all the topics we’ve discussed so far. And now we’re going to come in with more details in the second round on the engineering capacity, because I’m sure the audience would be interested. A few more short questions. from my side, and then now we’re going to ask for questions from the people listening to us today. So Robert, everyone is shifting. So you started the topic on capacity challenge in the parliamentarians. It seems that we acknowledge that, and we’re going to work on that to try to resolve it a bit. I’m having a question again on the literacy, on the inclusion. How are you assessing the challenge of addressing and reaching with your digital initiative, particularly to the people in the low income or some of the conflicted regions? Do you have some specific examples? And what is the response? Because it’s a very particular situation sometimes when we’re speaking about that.

Robert Opp: Absolutely. And the capacity question is probably the number one request that we get from our country partners. And it’s not just a single thing. So as we just heard, one issue is around engineering capacity and software engineers or developers, programmers. But of course, there’s capacity needs across the board from private sector to civil servants, to looking at higher education policy, to the parliamentarians, to et cetera, et cetera, general digital literacy among people. So addressing capacity has to be, it’s a very complex situation, so it needs a number of different kinds of interventions. One of the things that I briefly mentioned before is when we work with countries on digitalization, we often start with an assessment of the local digital ecosystem. And so in 53 of the countries we’ve worked with, that means sitting down with government, private sector, civil society, to understand the state of where we are with business ecosystem, regulatory ecosystem, government capacity, and general digital literacy. And based on that, we can design a kind of an action plan on where to… actually go to support different kinds of capacities that are needed. In terms of specific examples, just one example is, together with the government of Kenya, we have recently launched a center of competence on AI and digital skills for civil servants that is done in partnership with Microsoft and Huawei. And so it’s UNDP, Microsoft, Huawei, government of Kenya, looking at how we can bring civil servants into better capacities. And so there are a number of different kinds of angles that we can use, often involving the private sector, because private sector is also where cutting edge skill sets are. But more on the policy side, we also need to look at how do we actually ensure that people understand not just the technology itself, but as I mentioned before, how to govern those technologies. And so that’s where, in some cases, we’ve started engaging with parliamentarians on specific programs that we run in-country for parliamentarians, often with partners like IPU, to look at how we can actually build capacities of people to understand the shift. Because it is a different set of skills you need to understand how to govern technologies than actually build them.

Tsvetelina Penkova: Continuing with the specific examples, actually, it’s going to be interesting to follow up how those are developing, especially the example with Kenya, but I’m going to go back to Mr. Gong now. As the president of the World Federation of Engineering and Organization, you must have a very, very good overview of how things are developing. And you’ve pointed out on the first priority was the open and accessible platforms to assess the human resources in each part of the world and to make sure that we are promoting also the engineering capacity. Can you, do you have any specific example from your experience as well of like specific engineering solutions that actually helped? or did it impact significantly marginalized populations or solve inequality problems?

Gong Ke: That’s a very important question, but it’s hard to answer. Now, as the World Federation of Engineering Organizations, WFU, we are carrying out a big initiative. We called it the Engineering Capacity Building for Africa program. This spans 10 years long in the framework of the United Nations International Decade of Science for Sustainable Development. So in this initiative, we focus on the artificial intelligence because that is a revolutionary general purpose technology that penetrates all engineering professions. However, the risk of AI coming from two aspects. First is from the technical incompleteness. So there’s technically the contents generated by AI model is based on the probability. We call it so-called the joint probability because on the one side is the prompt and the generated content has the highest joint probability with your prompt. So we have to know that and to increase the capability of AI users to make factual check, logical check, ethical check to the contents. So that’s one side. Another side is that misuse of those models. To use this model to make this and this information, that’s very bad. Another kind of misuse is that perhaps 99% of the answers are correct, so people may simply rely on the model and give the rights to the model to believe all the models said to him or her. That’s not good. We have to keep the human oversight to know the mistakes is possible produced by those models. So that is also very important. Now we carry out trainings to engineers to help them to understand the fundamental mechanism how AI models work and why they can produce mistakes, and how to make so-called ethical, factual, logical, and scientific check to those generated contents. And we do hope that we can join hands with all of you to carry out the initiative. I mean the Engineering Capacity Building for Africa, that is a very ambitious, we hope in the following 10 years we can train more than 100,000 engineers in the workplace to grasp the AI tools, digital tools, to increase the quality of their life and their work.

Tsvetelina Penkova: Very important, very important topic actually, that we should be using the technologies as a tool and to help us to be more efficient, but not to substitute human capacity. This is a key topic everywhere we’re discussing those matters. And now where we are at the stage of implementing the AI technology, this is going to be reoccurring, so I would encourage you to keep on repeating that. that message because there is a fear among many societies that some of the technologies are here to take our jobs, which is absolutely not the case, but we have to provide the regulatory framework and the incentives and the campaigns to teach people how to use them to our best benefit. And this brings me back to Mario before I’m gonna turn to the audience for questions. So like circulating around, you’re going back to the digital literacy, to the knowledge of people if they can access and use the services you’re providing. The numbers you’ve given us in the introductions were very, very impressive. Like I didn’t remember them all, but you just said like 40 million user of digital ID, which is quite impressive already if people are trusting the digital platforms to use it for their identity. This is something as a key message from your opening remarks, but how do you ensure that people are actually aware of the systems that they’re using? And do you think that everyone has access to those services or just a specific group of people who are like young and a bit more open to those platforms? Like just a bit provocative question, I know, but it’s important to hear some answers.

Mario Nobile: I have half an hour, 20 minutes, no, one minute. So I’m joking. It’s, I think that the colleague, the literacy program is one of the cornerstones of digital services. We in the triennial plan, we have three cornerstones. The first is data quality. The second one is literacy for engineers, for deployers, for users. If you use an artificial intelligence, a generative artificial intelligence chatbot. and you are a citizen, you want to start a company, you want to interact with the national public registry of companies. You must know limits, opportunities of that kind of instrument. So the second cornerstone of literacy is very important. And we try on digital identity, on digital signatures, on e-invoicing, to make several kinds of literacy for engineers, for ICT engineers, for domain experts, the revenue officer, for citizens. And it’s tricky to find a way to tell people you are an engineer, you are a user, you are a citizen. The third one, last but not least, is the dataset control, which is your dataset control in the European Parliament, in the engineering organization. Data are in, are out, the patterns are in, are out. So, you know, technology evolves faster than most of the public administrations and companies can innovate. And I was talking before, three years are a long time. Now we are trying to build a strategic planning in a way, in a process, to leverage the predictive part of these emerging technologies in a faster way. This is a mandate for us. A short-term program, a short-term strategy, which involves literacy, data quality, and connection with citizens and companies. It’s a short time

Tsvetelina Penkova: Unfortunately, we’re limited on time with very very key messages So it’s good to acknowledge some of those problems and to start finding solutions together So in in in the sign of being together, I’m turning to you now For some questions or comments. I see the first one here. Then there are two more here. Let’s start Moving this way

Audience: I will speak in Arabic In Arabic or a field that needs digital initiatives 2. familiarizing people with the ideas and names of innovation initiatives an incentive to carry forward those initiatives 3. specialized education and training And especially for the skills of using these digital and smart initiatives for all specializations and levels, from the smallest employee to the highest level in public security. Of course, as a result of this, we can say that 30% of the successful initiatives that we implemented were innovative initiatives from public security employees. Of course, we feel proud and proud because we achieved a very advanced ranking according to the 2024 electronic parliamentary report, almost the first ranking in the Arab world and the 13th ranking in the world. Thank you.

Tsvetelina Penkova: Thank you. Can you pass the mic to the front row and then we’re going to move back here. Thank you.

Audience: Thank you very much. Also, I come from Bahrain. I really want to ask the UNDP representative, do you think that there is a need to issue a UN declaration to protect communities, values and ethics in the community based on the use of AI? Something like a declaration of human rights or maybe to amend the human rights declaration to protect the community of the misuse of AI? Something on the basis of the same basis of the EU Act that they have been issued recently? Because really, I think the changes happening in the AI world are so quick and require really global collaboration and cooperation to protect our community, especially those who don’t have full access or don’t have the knowledge or the technology or the understanding of the use of AI. Thank you.

Tsvetelina Penkova: Thank you. And now I’m moving to… the central sector, and then we’ll give you the floor.

Audience: Thank you very much. My name is Mahamdan Nasser from the Egyptian Parliament and I’m an engineer. So the first question for Mr. Kikong, we already have around 1 million engineers in Egypt. So can we work in this capacity building for engineers with Egypt? That would be wonderful. Another quick question for both Robert and Mario. Do you have any running or planned programs with Egypt for any of the projects you’ve been talking to or not? Thank you.

Tsvetelina Penkova: Very specific questions. Okay, let’s move there and then back and then one last question from this sector I’ll take after you.

Audience: Hello. My question is for Robert. I’m Kundan from India. I work with a non-profit called CG Netswara. I’m concerned around the DPI, digital public infrastructure. We know that, you know, it’s a hot thing. We talk a lot about these things and we also know that it’s a key thing to go ahead in terms of the growth of communities. But when you work with different countries, how do you kind of map out different DPIs within a framework, within a simple framework, which also upholds human rights, equality, and, you know, the values we are trying to uphold as a community, you know, who are trying to build for a multi-stakeholder future. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Just interesting talks. Only one point, please. I like all what you said, isn’t it a good idea for the UN to have common platforms to unify efforts to build such literacy programs, training for literacy or digital inclusion, increase engineering capacity and so on, instead of like every country is working like China, U.S., Europe, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, you know, all countries. Isn’t it better for the UN to have like unified or to work on such important parts so all the countries, they can have one place and other people from Africa, from Asia, from everywhere, they can benefit from it. It’s great work. Thank you.

Tsvetelina Penkova: Thank you. And we’re going to have one last question there and then I’m going to go back to our speakers. A lot of very specific questions were posed.

Audience: Good morning, Aileen Febles from the Cuban Parliament and President of a social organization that brings together all the professionals in the sector of technologies in Cuba. We are not members of the World Organization, but we will be, we will propose it and thank the PNUD because it has supported a lot since the creation of the organization in several projects that we have been developing, so I didn’t want to miss the opportunity. It seemed very important to me everything that has been said about the development of capacities, but sometimes in the projects that we do, they start and they end, and in the development of capacities, in technological issues, it is very important that it is permanent, iterative and incremental, because technological development advances a lot, and sometimes we start projects, we close them, and then that remains in the nothingness. So, trying to think of platforms like the one that the colleague mentioned earlier, and also in which these centers of training sign projects and present them to the UNEP Capacity Building Center for the Cuban engineers and the civil servants in Cuba and for those parliamentaries in my country so that we can really benefit from this.

Tsvetelina Penkova: Thank you. Very good example on inclusion, actually. And now I’m turning back to the panel here. A lot of questions, quite a lot of specific ones. Most of them to Robert. Can I speak? Oh, one. Okay, fine.

Audience: In French. I speak in French. Thank you very much. I come from Senegal, which faces two challenges. First, as you said, the digitization of the administration, whose biggest challenge remains the infrastructure, the appropriation, as well as the provision of funds. And here we rely a lot on parliamentarians and we do a lot of lobbying to achieve these objectives. We don’t have a translation in English. Sorry. No translation? So all of this gives us a wide range of challenges, also with the buyers, with the state. And here too, the parliamentarians play a big role. Because those who are from these white areas, these grey areas, today are still very, very introduced to the internet in their area. And when we see how a connected community is welcomed, we see that it is not only the young people who are happy. It is especially the leader, often it is a religious leader, who is a bit like the village chief, who connects all these people who are in Europe, who are in America, who are in the cities, and through these programs, who manage to develop the locality. It gives pride and it makes you want to go much further. And so all these challenges, we will still expect a lot of cooperation to be able to connect these millions of people who are today left behind in the digital divide. Thank you.

Tsvetelina Penkova: Thank you, thank you so much. Unfortunately, we are pressed by the time, so this was the last question. A comment is welcoming from the audience. Sorry? Okay, so now you want to take the floor? Perfect, okay. So this is going to be now the last one. Okay, I’m happy that we have such an engaged audience. Thank you.

Audience: I would like to thank you first, I would like to thank you first for this initiative which brought us as parliamentarians together and to get expertise from you. Of course, you benefited noting that the Algerian state is towards the digitization of Algeria within the 2020-30 program. We wanted to give a feedback or viewpoint about the infrastructure provided by Algeria and the state infrastructure and the freedoms of the national assembly. We were working in parallel with the executive body the government has provided as an infrastructure believing that if we want to develop the digitalization in our country we have to provide two major issues and then comes such other to interact with many countries to develop ourselves. We have started with infrastructure where Algeria has provided all the funding required to access each village and city in the Algerian territory. We have provided to cover with our coverage. Now, the Algerian parliament is working to provide the conducive environment for digitization and technology in general. We have started with the bill, it is about the self-contractor. We have started at the beginning the And Geneva doesn’t have the mechanism to work with different institutions, meaning that they’re facing challenges in dealing with mechanisms. Now that they succeeded in Algeria, many youth became more creative and can provide their products to all institutions, and we have successful experiences in this respect. In addition to that, today, the lawmakers in Algeria pay attention to a big issue, which is the AI. The AI, considering that now the current legislature in Algeria does not handle the AI issues from the… Of course, with the benefit of yesterday’s sessions, they gave a good idea to us, and also today about the electronic crimes legislatures. We have a couple of that. And so we can say that Algeria has led the legislative infrastructure and digital infrastructure to move forward towards economic. And at the end, I’d like to convey the greetings of the parliamentarian speaker, Thank you so much. Thank you.

Tsvetelina Penkova: Thank you for touching upon the topic that’s going to be debated, and how to prevent online harms, actually. So I know that we are running out of time, but there were a lot of specific questions addressed to our panelists, so I’ll turn back to you in whichever order you prefer to take the floor. So we’re going to take another five to six minutes of your time, but the audience is very engaged. So thank you. Who wants? Robert, thank you.

Robert Opp: I want to say thank you for the questions, because the quality of questions and comments, I think, indicates the level of interest. but also just the importance of this topic, and it makes me really happy to hear these kinds of questions coming out of parliamentarians and others. There were a couple of questions on the role of the UN in a declaration around AI and the Common Capacity Platform, and I want to address those a bit jointly. Professor Gong mentioned that there was, at this past September, the UN approved the Pact for the Future, which had as one of the parts the Global Digital Compact, and if you have not seen the Global Digital Compact yet, I would really encourage you to look for it on the UN website, because it sets out the direction agreed by 193 member states on issues related to capacity building, to artificial intelligence, and so on. At the moment, in terms of a declaration on AI and AI governance and human rights, to my understanding, most of the discussion so far has been that there’s no need to open up the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but rather we need to think through the implication of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the digital space, which is being done inside the UN by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and a number of other agencies, as well as with the engagement of Permanent Missions in New York as well. And so I think the Global Digital Compact has a number of statements around digital rights and human rights in the digital space that represents the commitment collectively of countries. In terms of the AI portion of that, there is a very active discussion right now on the potential for international or global governance of AI, but that depends on member states more than the UN. because member states will need to instruct the United Nations agencies on how to proceed. So there is an agreement in the Global Digital Compact on the creation of an international scientific panel for AI, the creation of a fund for AI, including around capacity, and an annual dialogue on artificial intelligence that would happen every year to look at these issues. So it does kind of, to get us to the point of saying, you know, could we do something like the EU AI Act, will require the member states to come around that. And in a similar way, the issue around capacity. In the Global Digital Compact, there are commitments around capacity, but the commitments will only become real if there’s resources put behind that, which again is an issue for member states to discuss. I mean, we already as agencies, we work together. So another example of capacity building is UNDP and the International Telecommunication Union, ITU, have a joint project that has received funds from the European Union to support the capacity building of policymakers around the world by developing 17 different courses in different aspects of digital governance and things. And that will be available to as many as 5,000 policymakers in the current budget that we have. And ideally, we would expand that. So there is a lot of discussion around how do we bring those efforts together and make them more available to more people. So I very much appreciate the signal. And then Egypt, we work extensively, UNDP works extensively with the Ministry of ICT and Minister Talat. We have, I think, something in the order of 170. million dollars of projects that are going on, including the Applied Innovation Center and many other things that are going on in the country. And that is also actually supported from the resources of the government of Egypt as well, so we bring the technical assistance and we’re very grateful. We were also grateful to host in Egypt this year, or the government hosted, the first global digital public infrastructure summit, and that was held in October and brought together people from around the world to focus on this issue. And speaking of DPI, the question on DPI, and I’m sorry, I’m trying to work my way through the questions, our view as the United Nations is we should not be implementing technology that does not have the corresponding policies and governance mechanisms around it. In digital public infrastructure, we have, in the last General Assembly this year, announced or launched, rather, the Universal Digital Public Infrastructure Safeguards Framework. That was done together with the UN Technology Envoy’s office, and it represents more or less exactly what you were saying. It is literally a framework. As countries introduce digital public infrastructure, the framework has the principles, policies, and best practices around the kinds of governance, laws, policies that should be in place, policies for data protection and privacy, policies when implementing digital identity platforms, policies around data exchange and data governance, and all of those kinds of things. We are now working to implement that, and for us, we will not work with a country when we don’t have the technology joined together with the governance. So that’s the way we approach it.

Tsvetelina Penkova: Thank you so much. Very specific and comprehensive. Most of the questions were to you anyway, so you had to take the time. Now for like some, I don’t think this is any need for me to answer. So Professor Gong, you’re not taking?

Mario Nobile: Only one minute if I may. Robert answered all the questions, but three points. The first one, Italy, we, our agency with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is carrying on the Piano Mattei. So our colleague of Egypt, Algeria, and Senegal, we will get in touch about this cooperation between Italy and African countries. And the second one, the Italian presidency of the G7 posed a point about the global governance of artificial intelligence. So we were talking about human rights, but also objectives like the UN sustainable imperative of no one must be left behind. So this is a point. The Italian point of the G7 presidency is we need a global governance about artificial intelligence. The third point, some of your questions. We, it took time to change our mind from horses to cars. Okay? Many years. Now, this relentless pace of artificial intelligence, we are facing months. In Italy, this is my two cents for discussion. In Italy, actually, now we are talking about tax imposition. to artificial intelligence tools. My colleague, the director of the National Institute for Welfare, in a public debate she said, persons must pay taxes. I’m happy to pay taxes to help others. If we are ready to use artificial intelligence tools, why cannot impose taxation? This is a question, not an answer.

Gong Ke: Let me just add a very short answer. So, from the questions, you raise a very important concept, that’s human rights. I think it’s an overarch goal for all of us. And let me remind that early this year, there’s a very important document released by the United Nations, edited by the high-level consultancy body for AI, that is the Governance AI for Humanity. So this is a very important document. And also I’d like to mention that two years ago, UNESCO has released a recommendation on the ethics of AI. That’s a very important standard-setting document. And then, I think it is also important, dealing with the interoperability of the DPI, the international norms. I think it is a very important role for the AI to play. And the good news is that the UN is going to set an AI office in the headquarters in the near future. So we do hope that we can see a more coordinated international operation on AI ethics and adaptations. So, I stop here.

Robert Opp: I think you’re better at representing the UN than I am. Thank you.

Tsvetelina Penkova: That’s the end of our panel. I just want to say thank you to the panelists and to the very engaged audience with the insightful and spot-on questions. A lot of topics were touched upon, a lot of them were very important, and I want to also thank the hosting country, Saudi Arabia, for having the opportunity to discuss all those key matters. As a concluding sentence, I would just say, let us commit to use the insights from today’s discussion to actually craft and create policies and incentives that are truly inclusive and leave no one behind. Thank you so much, and enjoy the rest of the program today.

Agreement Points

Importance of digital literacy and capacity building

speakers

Robert Opp

Gong Ke

Mario Nobile

arguments

Need for digital literacy and capacity building across sectors

Importance of engineering capacity building, especially in developing regions

Digital literacy programs as cornerstone of digital services adoption

summary

All speakers emphasized the critical need for digital literacy and capacity building across various sectors and regions, particularly in developing areas, to ensure effective adoption and use of digital technologies.

Tailoring digital solutions to local contexts

speakers

Robert Opp

Gong Ke

arguments

Implementing digital public infrastructure with corresponding policies and safeguards

Need to tailor digital platforms to local contexts and languages

summary

Both speakers stressed the importance of adapting digital solutions, including infrastructure and platforms, to local contexts, considering factors such as language, culture, and existing policies.

Similar Viewpoints

All three speakers highlighted the importance of collaboration between public and private sectors in developing digital infrastructure, skills, and services.

speakers

Robert Opp

Gong Ke

Mario Nobile

arguments

Partnerships with private sector for digital skills training

Collaboration across sectors to support digital adaptation

Italy’s development of digital public infrastructure building blocks

Unexpected Consensus

Need for global governance of AI and digital technologies

speakers

Mario Nobile

Audience

arguments

Rapid pace of AI development requiring adaptive governance

Need for global governance framework for AI and digital technologies

explanation

Both Mario Nobile and audience members unexpectedly agreed on the need for global governance frameworks for AI and digital technologies, despite coming from different perspectives (government official and general public).

Overall Assessment

Summary

The main areas of agreement centered around the importance of digital literacy and capacity building, tailoring digital solutions to local contexts, and the need for collaboration between public and private sectors in digital development.

Consensus level

There was a high level of consensus among the speakers on these key issues, suggesting a shared understanding of the challenges and potential solutions in digital transformation. This consensus implies that future policies and initiatives in this area are likely to focus on these agreed-upon priorities, potentially leading to more coordinated and effective efforts in digital inclusion and development.

Different Viewpoints

Approach to digital literacy and capacity building

speakers

Robert Opp

Mario Nobile

Gong Ke

arguments

Need for digital literacy and capacity building across sectors

Digital literacy programs as cornerstone of digital services adoption

Importance of engineering capacity building, especially in developing regions

summary

While all speakers agree on the importance of digital literacy and capacity building, they emphasize different aspects and approaches. Robert Opp focuses on a broad range of sectors, Mario Nobile emphasizes literacy for digital service adoption, and Gong Ke stresses engineering capacity building in developing regions.

Unexpected Differences

Approach to AI governance

speakers

Mario Nobile

Gong Ke

arguments

Rapid pace of AI development requiring adaptive governance

Need to tailor digital platforms to local contexts and languages

explanation

While both speakers discuss AI governance, their approaches differ unexpectedly. Mario Nobile suggests adaptive governance and potential taxation of AI tools, while Gong Ke focuses on tailoring AI platforms to local contexts and languages, which was not directly addressed by other speakers.

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement revolve around the specific approaches to digital literacy, capacity building, and AI governance.

difference_level

The level of disagreement among the speakers is moderate. While they agree on the importance of digital inclusion and capacity building, they have different emphases and approaches. These differences reflect the complexity of digital transformation and the need for multifaceted strategies tailored to different contexts and needs.

Partial Agreements

Both speakers agree on the importance of cross-sector collaboration for digital development, but they differ in their focus. Robert Opp emphasizes partnerships for skills training, while Gong Ke highlights collaboration for technology adaptation.

speakers

Robert Opp

Gong Ke

arguments

Partnerships with private sector for digital skills training

Collaboration across sectors to support digital adaptation

Similar Viewpoints

All three speakers highlighted the importance of collaboration between public and private sectors in developing digital infrastructure, skills, and services.

speakers

Robert Opp

Gong Ke

Mario Nobile

arguments

Partnerships with private sector for digital skills training

Collaboration across sectors to support digital adaptation

Italy’s development of digital public infrastructure building blocks

Key Takeaways

Digital inclusion and capacity building are critical priorities for inclusive digital transformation

Digital public infrastructure needs to be implemented alongside appropriate governance frameworks and safeguards

Public-private partnerships are important for driving digital skills development and service delivery

There are significant challenges in addressing the digital divide, especially in developing regions

AI governance and human rights considerations are becoming increasingly important as AI develops rapidly

Resolutions and Action Items

UNDP and ITU to provide capacity building courses on digital governance for up to 5,000 policymakers

Italy to engage with African countries on digital cooperation through the ‘Piano Mattei’ initiative

UN to establish an AI office at headquarters to coordinate international efforts on AI ethics and adaptation

Unresolved Issues

How to effectively address the digital divide in low-income and conflict-affected regions

Whether a UN declaration or amendment to human rights declaration is needed to address AI impacts

How to ensure digital literacy programs are ongoing rather than one-off projects

Approach to taxing AI tools and systems

Suggested Compromises

Using existing human rights frameworks and interpreting them for the digital space, rather than creating new declarations

Balancing rapid AI development with adaptive governance approaches

Tailoring digital platforms to local contexts while working towards global standards

We sometimes talk about digital public infrastructure, which I know some of the other panelists are going to mention, but digital public infrastructure is that sort of digital roads and bridges that need to be put in place, usually put in place at the instigation of government, but often implemented itself by private sector and operated by private sector.

speaker

Robert Opp

reason

This comment introduces the important concept of digital public infrastructure and highlights the collaborative role of government and private sector in implementing it.

impact

It set the stage for further discussion on public-private partnerships in digital transformation and the importance of foundational digital systems.

We have 23,000 public administrations in Italy, local central health services, so it’s very difficult.

speaker

Mario Nobile

reason

This brief statement succinctly captures the complexity of implementing digital transformation across a large, diverse governmental system.

impact

It prompted a more detailed discussion of Italy’s digital initiatives and the challenges of coordinating across many entities.

So based on our observation, our, I mean, the Chinese Institute of Artificial Intelligence Development Strategy, based on our observation to the development of digitalization in China, we find that the two strategies are very, very crucial. First, from the supply side, it is a key measure to providing open, accessible platforms.

speaker

Gong Ke

reason

This comment introduces a strategic framework for digital development based on China’s experience, emphasizing open platforms.

impact

It shifted the discussion towards more concrete strategies for digital inclusion and development, particularly in developing regions.

Do you think that there is a need to issue a UN declaration to protect communities, values and ethics in the community based on the use of AI? Something like a declaration of human rights or maybe to amend the human rights declaration to protect the community of the misuse of AI?

speaker

Audience member from Bahrain

reason

This question raises important considerations about global governance of AI and protection of human rights in the digital age.

impact

It prompted a discussion on existing UN initiatives and the potential need for new global frameworks for AI governance.

Isn’t it a good idea for the UN to have common platforms to unify efforts to build such literacy programs, training for literacy or digital inclusion, increase engineering capacity and so on, instead of like every country is working like China, U.S., Europe, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, you know, all countries.

speaker

Audience member

reason

This suggestion highlights the potential for greater international cooperation in digital capacity building.

impact

It led to a discussion of existing UN initiatives and the challenges of coordinating global efforts in digital development.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by broadening its scope from national digital initiatives to global considerations of digital infrastructure, inclusion, and governance. They highlighted the complexity of implementing digital transformation across diverse systems, the need for strategic approaches to digital development, and the importance of international cooperation and governance frameworks, particularly for AI. The discussion evolved from specific national examples to broader considerations of how to ensure equitable and ethical digital development on a global scale.

How to ensure digital literacy programs reach all segments of society, including older and less tech-savvy populations?

speaker

Tsvetelina Penkova

explanation

This is important to address the digital divide and ensure inclusive digital transformation.

How to implement AI governance frameworks that protect community values and ethics?

speaker

Audience member from Bahrain

explanation

This is crucial for mitigating risks associated with AI and ensuring its responsible use.

Can the World Federation of Engineering Organizations work on capacity building for engineers in Egypt?

speaker

Mahamdan Nasser from Egyptian Parliament

explanation

This could help enhance engineering skills and AI readiness in Egypt.

What specific digital public infrastructure (DPI) projects are UNDP and the Agency for Digital Italy running or planning with Egypt?

speaker

Mahamdan Nasser from Egyptian Parliament

explanation

This information could facilitate collaboration and knowledge sharing between countries.

How to map out different DPIs within a framework that upholds human rights and equality?

speaker

Kundan from India

explanation

This is important for ensuring DPI implementations align with ethical and human rights standards.

Could the UN create common platforms to unify efforts in digital literacy, inclusion, and engineering capacity building?

speaker

Audience member

explanation

This could streamline global efforts and make resources more accessible to all countries.

How to ensure capacity building in technological issues is permanent, iterative, and incremental?

speaker

Aileen Febles from Cuban Parliament

explanation

This is crucial for keeping pace with rapid technological advancements and maintaining relevant skills.

How to address infrastructure challenges in digitizing administration, especially in developing countries?

speaker

Audience member from Senegal

explanation

This is key for enabling digital transformation in areas with limited resources.

How to implement taxation on AI tools?

speaker

Mario Nobile

explanation

This could be an important consideration for funding public services in the age of AI.

Summary

This discussion focused on information integrity in the digital age, exploring the challenges and potential solutions for maintaining a healthy information ecosystem online. Participants from various backgrounds discussed the role of platforms, governments, and civil society in addressing issues like misinformation, hate speech, and threats to democracy.

The conversation highlighted the need for a human rights-based and multi-stakeholder approach to digital platform governance. Speakers emphasized the importance of transparency, accountability, and user empowerment in platform policies. The discussion touched on the limitations of current approaches to information integrity, with some arguing for more structural reforms to address the root causes of online harms.

Participants discussed various initiatives and policies, including UNESCO’s guidelines for digital platform governance, Brazil’s efforts to combat disinformation, and international collaborations like the Global Digital Compact. The role of regulation was debated, with speakers noting the challenges of balancing freedom of expression with the need to address harmful content.

The discussion also explored the specific challenges of maintaining information integrity during elections, highlighting the need for coordination between platforms, electoral management bodies, and civil society. Speakers stressed the importance of context-specific approaches and the need for ongoing assessment and adaptation of policies.

Overall, the discussion underscored the complexity of achieving information integrity in the digital age and the need for collaborative, multifaceted approaches that involve all stakeholders in the digital ecosystem.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– The concept of information integrity and its importance for democracy and human rights

– The role of platforms, governments, and civil society in regulating online content and combating misinformation

– Challenges around elections and the spread of disinformation on social media

– The need for structural reforms to address root causes of misinformation, not just symptom-level solutions

– Balancing freedom of expression with content moderation and platform accountability

The overall purpose of the discussion was to explore information integrity from the intersection of human rights and platform responsibilities, examining challenges and evaluating strategies to uphold human rights principles in the digital landscape.

The tone of the discussion was largely academic and policy-oriented, with speakers presenting research findings and policy proposals. There was a sense of urgency around addressing misinformation, but also caution about overly restrictive approaches. The tone became slightly more speculative and uncertain when discussing emerging decentralized platforms near the end.

Speakers

– Yasmin Curzi: Law professor at FGV Law School, Digitally Vargas Foundation in Rio de Janeiro; Postdoctoral research associate at the Karsh Institute of Democracy, University of Virginia; Coordinator of the Dynamic Coalition on Platform Responsibility

– Dennis Redeker: Co-chair of the Internet Rights and Principles Coalition; Researcher at the University of Bremen

– Tapani Tarvainen: Moderator

– Ana Cristina Ruelas: Works for UNESCO on freedom of expression in the digital environment; Former member of Article 19 in Mexico and Central America

– Maira Sato: Representative from Brazil’s Secretariat for Digital Policies of the Presidency of the Republic

– Marrin Muhammed: Researcher

– Ramon Costa: Moderator

Additional speakers:

– Julia: Researcher at J.W. Vargas Foundation (audience member who asked a question)

Information Integrity in the Digital Age: Challenges and Solutions

This discussion explored the complex landscape of information integrity in the digital era, focusing on challenges faced by platforms, governments, and civil society in maintaining a healthy online information ecosystem. Experts from various fields examined the intersections of human rights, platform responsibilities, and democratic processes in the digital realm.

Key Themes and Discussions

1. Multi-stakeholder Approach and International Initiatives

A central theme was the necessity of a multi-stakeholder approach to addressing information integrity issues. Ana Cristina Ruelas emphasized the importance of involving governments, platforms, civil society, and academics in developing solutions. Maira Sato highlighted Brazil’s active role in promoting information integrity, including its inclusion in the G20’s agenda and the country’s adherence to the OECD recommendation on information integrity. Sato also discussed Brazil’s plans to launch a national chapter of the Global Initiative for Information Integrity on Climate Change, a collaboration with the United Nations and UNESCO.

2. Platform Responsibility and Accountability

Speakers unanimously agreed on the need for greater transparency and accountability from digital platforms, particularly during elections. Ana Cristina Ruelas stressed the importance of platforms being transparent about their content moderation practices and risk assessments. The discussion noted a shift from content-focused strategies to process-focused ones in regulatory approaches.

3. Structural Reforms and Root Causes

Marine Muhammed argued that current regulatory approaches fail to address the root causes of information integrity issues, contending that platform business models and techno-design architecture foster a hostile digital environment. Yasmin Curzi advocated for policies to decentralize media monopolies across the broader media landscape.

4. Challenges in Regulating Digital Platforms

The moderator, Tapani Tarvainen, raised the unexpected point of difficulties in regulating decentralized platforms like Mastodon, highlighting the challenges of applying traditional regulatory approaches to new technological structures. The discussion touched on balancing freedom of expression with content moderation, particularly in decentralized environments.

5. Information Integrity During Elections

A significant portion of the discussion focused on maintaining information integrity during elections. Speakers stressed the importance of coordination between platforms, electoral management bodies, and civil society. An audience member raised questions about assessing platform performance during elections globally and identifying unacceptable outcomes in electoral processes related to social media.

6. Gender and Information Integrity

Yasmin Curzi discussed her article on Gender Information Integrity, highlighting the importance of feminist approaches in addressing information integrity issues. This perspective emphasized the need for diverse participation in content production and moderation.

7. Research and Global Perspectives

Dennis Redeker’s research on social media attitudes across 41 countries was mentioned, providing insights into global perspectives on platform regulation and information integrity. The role of UNESCO in managing a global fund to support research and communication projects on information integrity was also discussed.

8. Collaboration Between Platforms and Regulators

The Australian eSafety Commissioner was cited as an example of successful collaboration between platforms and regulators, demonstrating the potential for effective partnerships in addressing information integrity challenges.

Conclusion and Future Directions

The discussion underscored the complexity of achieving information integrity in the digital age and the need for collaborative, multifaceted approaches. Key takeaways included the need for structural reforms, the importance of human rights and feminist frameworks, and the crucial role of platform transparency and accountability.

Unresolved issues and areas for further exploration included:

– Effective regulation of decentralized platforms

– Balancing freedom of expression with content moderation

– Scaling up alternative, decentralized communication platforms while addressing moderation challenges

– Finding political will to implement structural reforms of platform business models

The conversation concluded with a call for continued development of guidelines and principles for digital platform governance, emphasizing the need for ongoing dialogue, research, and international cooperation to address the evolving challenges of information integrity in the digital age.

Yasmin Curzi: so we don’t have any more delays. Thank you all for your patience. My name is Yasmin Curzi. I’m a law professor at FGV Law School, Digitally Vargas Foundation at Rio de Janeiro, postdoctoral research associate at the Karsh Institute of Democracy at the University of Virginia. The session is organized alongside my colleague, Dennis Hedeker from the Dynamic Coalition on Internet Rights and Principles. It was an idea, a joint session with the CPR, the Dynamic Coalition on Platform Responsibility, which I coordinate with Professor Luca Belli as well. So as we all know, digital platforms has radically transformed how we engage with information, ideas, and each other. And with these advancements come critical challenges, the spread of disinformation, misinformation, hate speech, and threats to democracy, our concerns that demand our attention, the idea of information integrity has emerged as a framework to address these issues, but it remains an evolving concept that lacks a solid, unified theoretical framework. This session today seeks to bridge this gap by exploring information integrity from the intersection of human rights and platform responsibilities. We just published the CPR outcome. It is available at the Internet Governance Forum website. I can put the link here in the chat later for any of you who have interest on this. Basically trying to explore this gap with the information integrity literature that we think that could draw more on the platform responsibilities scholarship. So we propose this session. to examine the responsibility of social media platforms over online content and governmental and international strategies to ensure and uphold human rights principles. Our goal is not only to discuss the challenges but also to evaluate and support the ongoing activities of all stakeholders involved in this debate and involved in advancing human rights and inclusion in the digital landscape. And that’s the idea of our session. I hope we can all engage here. You can raise questions. We have a time for Q&A after the speaker’s presentation. I’d like to thank you all again for being here. Thank you all for your patience with this little delay in starting the session. Now I’d like to invite my colleague, Dennis Heidecker for his presentation as well and presentation of the IRPC, our partner here today. Thank you so much once again.

Dennis Redeker: Thank you very much, Yasmin. Thank you everyone for being here, the speakers, the onsite moderators and obviously the technical team. Indeed, we just here proposed this joint session to bring together the knowledge of two dynamic coalitions and next to the platform responsibility, the dynamic coalition that Yasmin just introduced, the Internet Rights and Principles Coalition, founded more than 15 years ago in 2009, in 2008, sorry, is a dynamic coalition that deals with today also with questions of platforms. So the Internet Rights and Principles indeed are also platform rights and principles and the entire discourse on platform responsibilities, I would say has taken a turn into the question of human rights as a standard for platform actions. platform policies and for ways of negotiating also between different jurisdictions. The Internet Rights and Principles Coalition works in this field and applies human rights standards to all kinds of digital technologies, whereas the charter that was written about 15 years ago talks specifically and translates the Universal Declaration of Human Rights into the age of the Internet. This definitely applies to platforms, to other kinds of technologies, and that’s, I think, a fruitful engagement with these kind of documents, with the charter, with the UDHR, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, obviously, and with platform rules and platform responsibilities. So we look forward to this discussion today. Thank you for everyone to join today.

Tapani Tarvainen: So our next speaker here would be Ana Ruelas. who is working for UNESCO in the work on freedom of expression in the digital environment, who was formerly in Article 19 in Mexico and Central America, and is certainly very qualified to speak on these topics. So I just hand over to you, Ana.

Ana Cristina Ruelas: Thank you very much. And thank you very much, Jasmin, for the invitation. It has been great following up this discussion since last year. Well, I think a little bit more, but last year we also had this conversation. And I think that it’s good how it has evolved over the last year and how good it is to see a lot of people more engaging into a more, let’s say, human rights-based and multi-stakeholder conversation over information integrity. Many things have happened in the last year. Primarily, I think the most important thing inside of the UN is the approval of the Global Digital Compact that actually talks about the importance of enhancing information integrity and allowing people to have access to reliable information in the digital sphere. And I think that I will start with that, because UNESCO started this conversation a long time ago when we released the Rome Principles and said that any kind of discussion around Internet governance should be done through a human rights-based and multi-stakeholder approach. And after that, we started a huge discussion in order to try to identify how should we balance freedom of expression and access to information at the same time that we’re dealing with the governance of digital platforms. And this discussion led to the guidelines for the governance of digital platforms that we believe it is a document that helps understand different stakeholder groups, how to meaningfully engage in digital platform governance. and try to make sure that the same time that governments fulfill their responsibilities to enable the environment for freedom of expression by refraining to shut downs, by refraining to not being transparent about the type of requirements that they place upon digital platforms, by making sure that they are doing a step forwards to close the digital divide by ensuring journalist protection and enhancing media viability. We also have the responsibility of digital platforms to comply with five key principles. And those five key principles are very much related to what is that we should expect that should happen in order to ensure that we promote the integrity of information. The first principle relate to the responsibility for being transparent. It is not only about transparency related to how they are putting in place their operations, their community guidelines. It’s also about how they are dealing with content. They have the possibility and the responsiveness for platforms to explain their users on how they are taking decisions over their content and how is that they are moderating or creating content. Also to have the possibility to respond to users on what are the measures they are taking to ensure that while they design, deploy it and use different products and services, they’re actually being careful about the type of risks that these different products and services could entail. Primarily in the specific context, for instance, in elections or during crisis and armed conflict but also when there’s a change of operations or where there’s a case of to protect the specific people that are. critical to encase the freedoms in the digital sphere, such as journalists, human rights defenders, artists, scientists, et cetera. And the other thing that the guideline says that there’s very important to create control or to create tools from the governance systems for the users and non-users to have control over their own content and make their own decisions. So this is also important because although there’s a lot of actions related now to strengthen the integrity of information, I do think that it is very important that we recognize the need to create for different users, primarily the most vulnerable and marginalized users, to make sure that they can create their own content that then can create counter narratives to those that are disseminating this information on hate speech. And they can also take control over their engagement with the different digital services and products. The Global Digital Compact says something very important that relates to how to ensure information integrity that UNESCO is trying to move forward with along with different stakeholders, is that multi-stakeholder networks. We acknowledge that this is not only a thing that has to happen between regulatory authorities and regulated entities, but to have also the participation of civil society actors, academics, journalists, in the discussion is very, very important. So for that, UNESCO has been strengthening the possibility to have a global forum of networks of regulatory authorities, engaging with a group of think tanks and research centers that would serve as a trust for the implementation of the guidelines, which is very much related to what the Global Digital Compact says on the importance of integrating into this discussion those that are actually implementing the rules that are being approved by the legislative authorities. So for us right now, the main… the way forward to enhance information integrity relates to creating awareness on the human-based, human rights-based and multi-stakeholder approach of digital platform awareness that entails what I already said. On the other side, the strengthening of multi-stakeholder networks that acknowledge the importance of bringing together different stakeholders, not as just one role for each one, but to actually participate together in the definition and implementation and evaluation of policies and to make sure that regulatory authorities have the specific capacities to deal with the new problems related to information integrity. So I will leave it like that and then we can continue the conversation. Thank you very much.

Moderator: Okay, I’m on here. I think you can see me, Ana, but I’m here in person. Well, can you hear me? No. I hear you, but I cannot see you. I don’t know why. I think, oh no, they showed the video now. Actually, I tried turning on the video, but for some reason, I cannot stop. Can you hear me now? Okay. Yes, I can hear you. Yeah. Okay, I hope you can see me following the session, but for a start, I want to say thank you, especially for inviting me. It’s a real pleasure to share this session with you and it’s really incredible. Listen, Cristina Velas, she’s a very important specialist that I think that has many important topics to bring to us. So let me just see here. Thank you, Ana and Cristina. I think we have a very specific work from UNESCO in producing knowledge about how human rights are are challenged by new technologies, and then it’s our economic and social challenges. But now I have to ask for, I’m not listening myself well, just, can you hear me well? Okay, my microphone just cut my voice, and this is just, but okay, let’s go. Okay, now it’s better, oh, so much better. Well, I would like to ask for Marie, one of the speakers to, she could share your contributions about the global south, please.

Marrin Muhammed: Thank you, thank you, everyone. Hi, am I audible? Okay. Yes. Yeah, thank you so much for having me as part of this panel and for this important conversation. And I think in my intervention, I would like to talk about the limitations, some of the limitations that we feel of the dominant framing of the term information integrity and the current approaches that we have seen so far to strengthen information integrity. So information integrity is a much discussed as well as a much contested term. Initially defined narrowly in terms of accuracy, consistency, and reliability, the concept or the term has now evolved. And now when we look at the global, UN Global Principles of Information Integrity, which was released in June, I think of this year, we can see that the focus is no longer primarily on the integrity of the information as such, but the integrity of the information ecosystem. And this is a welcome and necessary change because many have been pointing out how the earlier framing of information integrity in terms of just. accuracy, consistency and reliability tend to neglect the broader ecosystem of actors and the economic, political and social factors that shape the production, legitimization, dissemination and consumption of information. So now, while we have a broader framing of information integrity now, we still need to deliberate on what it means in actual concrete terms, so that it does not become another buzzword. So the UN Global Principle describe information integrity as, and even in the GDC, when you see GDC, you can see the similar language as fostering a pluralistic information space, one that enables trust, knowledge and individual choice. And no one can dispute that these are important values to achieve. But the question is, what do they mean in practical terms? Like what kind of pluralism are we talking about? How can we remove the barriers to exercising individual choice? What is it required to build trust in diverse contexts? So these questions demand careful consideration, especially grounded in the unique complexities and challenges faced by different regions. In other words, while it is useful to have an overarching set of principles, for any real results, these principles have to be infused with meaning by the collectivist visions of what information ecosystem should entail in each local or regional context. For example, the dominant, some of the discourses that we see, it simplifies information integrity to a binary of trustworthy versus untrustworthy information. The assumption that just by providing trustworthy and accurate and plural information will automatically empower citizens, ignore the complexities of communication dynamics and public trust. It also overlooks advanced ways in which diverse population perceive, interpret and engage with information. So I think a meaningful articulation of information integrity must address the informational needs of the people in their regional, social, cultural context, identify the barriers that prevent them from engaging meaningfully, and ensure their ability to participate in public deliberations. So the dominant framing of information integrity, which focuses primarily on supply side of the information that is ensuring accuracy, reliability, trustworthiness, it can be in adequate. The information integrity debate should also grapple with individual’s ability to generate ideas and opinions, express and speak, and most importantly, have their voices heard and understood. Because in many regions, there are populations who have been who have faced criminalization and censorship, and they have, and as a result, they have had limited opportunity to produce information. Now, another point that I want to raise is the limitations of some of the limitations of the current dominant approaches to strengthening information integrity. The UN Global Principles on Information Integrity may have adopted a broader framing of the concept. Yet, the recommended responses do not seem promising enough to bring forth the structural changes in the information ecosystem, as it relies heavily on state based regulations and goodwill and voluntary goodwill of technology companies. It’s true that the app, you know, approaches the measures, platform regulation measures like fact checking, improving content moderation, platform transparency, these are very important and crucial and must be implemented with great vigor, and can go a long way in improving the aspects of information ecosystem. However, they tend to be symptomatic remedies, in the sense of mitigating harms. They operate within the confines of the surveillance capitalist paradigm, ultimately reinforcing big tech’s gatekeeping powers. without addressing the underlying structural issues. So these measures have to be accompanied with some structural reforms also. Further, even when we talk about measures to enhance competition among digital platforms and services, such as by mandating interoperability and data portability, these are significant, they should be carried forward. But even these measures, I am not sure if they guarantee a shift away from the extractive surveillance-oriented mode of Q-dating conversations that we have now. Even measures to give users more control over the content that they view, I’m not sure how successful that will be given the polarized environment where entrenched platform designs make it challenging to exercise meaningful choice even for tech-savvy users. So I’m not sure if there was a major section of the population who may not have digital literacy and may struggle to make such meaningful technological choices. And they still rely on messaging apps like WhatsApp to get basic information or even get welfare services. So the user empowerment measures, I’m not sure how much successful it will be to safeguard the information, to strengthen information integrity. So the liberal regulatory playbook of supplier-focused and consumer-focused remedies to restoring health and vibrancy of the public sphere does not address the root cause of the problem, which is the business model of the platforms, the techno-design architecture that foster the hostile digital environment. So challenging this paradigm needs structural changes to social media, platform architecture, and not just procedural rules to mitigate specific harms. So we must reimagine how public discourse is organized online, placing values of truth and democratic integrity at the center. But yet these values of… truth and democratic integrity seems incompatible with the surveillance capitalist model that we follow today. So hence, to safeguard information integrity, it is vital to make a shift away from the extractive business model of online platforms. Even the UN global principles acknowledge this imperative, but stop short of mandating real action, leaving it to platforms’ voluntary revaluation of their models. This is insufficient. We need structural reforms, we need legislations to enforce these structural reforms through legal and policy measures. There have been many suggestions of how such structural reforms can be brought about. These measures could include imposing a statutory duty of care on platform owners for addressing the individual and societal harm stemming from their business model. Some even suggest a call for ex-ante licensing of platforms akin to pharmaceutical drugs, given their societal impact. Regulations could also target platforms’ reliance on attention-driven algorithms. So instead of prioritizing just relevance, platforms should be required by law to promote diverse, serendipitous, value-sensitive content tailored to different contexts. Regulations could even, I mean, it could even require platforms to change their structures from profit-seeking to non-profit model. I mean, so we need such bold solutions, I think, to really strike at the root cause of the problem. And beyond regulating big tech, there are other measures that we should also think about, like fostering diverse alternative media and communication platforms. There’s a strong case to be made for public service media, community-driven initiatives, with a civic mission to provide citizens with a pluralistic, global view of the world. And this would require public funding and policy support. Then reviving journalism, local journalism, but it’s very important. It’s essential for compacting disinformation, informing public deliberation, and to restore trust in the community. community. The government can play a role in this by providing sustained financial support, implementing revenue sharing models between platforms and news publishers, and journalism, the media also should think about alternative business models to ensure their independence and survival in this changed landscape. So to conclude, I would just like to say that addressing the chaos in today’s information landscape demands structural reforms that target platform business models, the incentive structure, the techno design architecture. And along with that, we need measures which would, you know, we should have a positive vision of what an information ecosystem should look like and take measures which would create incentives for truth and public deliberation, which will satisfy the information needs of the people and remove the barriers that people face in meaningfully engaging with the information that they receive to respond to the information.

Yasmin Curzi: Yeah, that’s all, thank you. Thank you, Marine. That was a very eloquent presentation of the root cause of the problem and even some good ideas on how to do that. Although the one thing that you are still missing is how to find the political will to do that. But of course, talking here is one way to push exactly that. So maybe there is hope. I will not delve more into that. But next, we’re supposed to have Samara Castro, but I understand she’s not present. But somebody from my office is. Is that correct? Yes. Yes. It’s Maira Sato. Okay, Maira, if you please, go on.

Maira Sato: Hi, hello. I don’t know if you can hear me properly. We can hear you. Yes. We just do not see you, right? Well, Mara, I think you can start and then they can solve it later. Thank you so much for your patience. Oh, yes, I was having a problem to open my mic to again, well, thank you. Good morning. Thank you very much for inviting Brazil to take part in this debate. As I said, I’m actually replacing our Director for Freedom of Speech, Samara. She had a last minute incident and could not join us here today. I didn’t have much time to prepare my intervention here, but I hope I can contribute to the debate. Well, first of all, I’d like to say that my institution, the Secretariat for Digital Policies of the Presidency of the Republic, is a new structure in the Brazilian government. And it was built in Lula’s government when it became very clear for us that we needed to have a digital policy to deal with the issues of disinformation, misinformation, and all the new challenges that the digital environment imposed to the information ecosystems. We had, as you may know, several important cases of disinformation that had a severe impact in the elections, threatening our democracy and also our policies, including health policies, for example, during the COVID-19 pandemic, when the spread of anti-vaccine disinformation affected our health policies and vaccination levels. So our Secretariat started its work focused on fighting disinformation. Our government established by decree the Procuratorate for the Defense of Democracy, and we designed institutional channels to ensure that the information and analysis of cases of disinformation that threatened the democratic system and the implementation of federal policies would be duly… followed by the governmental institutions responsible for that, but besides doing its work in monitoring and informing the relevant institutions on cases of disinformation, our Secretariat also started some innovative programs. We actually considered to be a kind of pilot to create and test new approaches to deal with disinformation applied to concrete sectors. So, first of all, we decided that we would focus our attention in the health sector, considering the serious impact that disinformation had to the decrease of the vaccination levels in Brazil. And just as an example, in 2021, we reached the lowest levels of vaccination in Brazil in decades, and similar to what we had in the 80s, for example. And this program that we launched, called Health with Science, was launched one year ago and is supporting our Ministry of Health to recover the levels of vaccination in Brazil. The program acts through several pillars of action, monitoring of disinformation narratives, communication strategies, investigation and accountability, institutional partnerships and capacity building. So, it aims to promote an integrated approach to deal with disinformation. And in parallel, our Secretariat was also actively contributing to the international debate on information integrity. This is because we understood that the concept of information integrity allows us to have a positive and propositive approach to deal with the new digital information ecosystem and the challenges that it imposes to the public debate. And we understand that this is essential to the functioning of democracies and the right to have access to reliable, accurate and evidence-based information. So, with this understanding that information integrity, what we need to do is to have a more inclusive approach to deal with disinformation narratives, and to have a more inclusive approach the concept that allows us to have a propositive and integrated approach to the new environment, digital information environment. Brazil has been very active to include this concept nationally and internationally in the debate. So, as Brazil was in the presidency of the G20 last year, this year actually, until November, we worked to include this issue, the issue of information integrity in the G20’s agenda and we managed to include an item on information integrity in the G20’s working group on digital economy. That was the first time that the G20 countries committed to act to promote information integrity in the digital space. So, we think it’s an important step. We also contributed to the discussions on information integrity in New York during the negotiations of the global digital compact and we were happy to include a separate section on information integrity in the GDC. Recently, very recently actually this week,

Yasmin Curzi: we also adhered to the OECD recommendation on information integrity. And now in the G20 summit last November, we officially launched with the United Nations and UNESCO the global initiative for the information integrity on climate change. The idea again is to focus our attention on how to implement this concept, how to personalize this concept in a specific sector, which is not so specific, so specialized, because of course it involves the whole society, but in any case it’s a concrete implementation of the concept. This is our aim. And the idea of this initiative is to join forces between governments, international organizations, and civil society organizations to promote the information integrity on climate change through a global fund to be managed by UNESCO. The fund will support research projects, strategic communication projects, and reinforce existing communication campaigns. The initiative also aims at promoting the debate on information integrity. at the institutional level and in the international agenda, including the Conference of Parties of the UNFCCC. And we are now preparing to launch the Brazilian chapter of the Global Initiative. The Brazilian chapter will be our national implementation of the Global Initiative for Information Integrity on Climate Change. And our intention is to create through the experience that we have achieved with our Health with Science program, also an integrated approach to promote information integrity on climate change, and talking with different actors, including the civil society and mobilizing the private sector to be a very inclusive process, and the government, of course. And to be faithful to the concept of information integrity as defined in the UN’s global principles on information integrity, we wish to adopt a broad perspective and focus our attention in different elements that support information integrity, while understanding that regulation matters need to be treated a bit separately, as they don’t depend exclusively on the executive power of the federal government. In this context, we are focusing our attention to areas such as research, communication strategy, accountability, support to journalism, also media environmental education, and positive incentives for information integrity. In this last pillar, we also wish to work with, to foster a national coalition of advertisers for the information integrity, which is something I think is very important, because it also deals with some of the structural issues of how advertising and publicity works in the digital space. But it is also important to mention that even though in the Brazilian chapter of the global initiative we are not focusing our attention on regulation I think Maria is offline right now. Something happened with her connection maybe. Maria? The sound. I think the mic is off again. Sorry about this. No problem. I was just saying that even though our actions here in the executive power are not focused primarily on regulation because we know that regulation depends on the other powers of the government which are not in our power to decide

Maira Sato: we are trying to have an active participation also in the discussions on regulation that are taking place in Brazil’s national congress. Recently we had an important approval by our senate of our law on artificial intelligence. This law is not finally approved because it still needs to be approved by the chamber of deputies. But it’s an important document in which we managed to establish a governance for AI systems with a regulatory agency according to a scale of AI systems categorized by levels of risks. And with a special focus on human rights and with different due diligence responsibilities. And we also managed to ensure that the use of work subject… to the rights of author to train AI systems will be paid to the right owners. And moreover, we managed to include also the term information integrity in the text. So we are trying also to foster this debate on information integrity here nationally. So in all these actions, our aim is to promote and to develop the concept of information integrity nationally and internationally, and to test different approaches on how to concretely operationalize it as a public policy. So I think that’s it, what I had to say here. Thank you.

Ramon Costa: Hello. Can you hear me? Wow. I can hear you, but I’m going to read some points that I note when we’re talking, so the G20’s digital economy working group under Brazil’s president achieved a landmark consensus of promoting information integrity, where we have for the first time a multilateral declaration addressing this crucial issue, highlighting its impact on political and economic stability. Four key areas were identified, significant connectivity digital governance, artificial intelligence, and information integrity, the central theme of your session. Brazil champions a comprehensive approach, balancing rights and promoting transparency for initiatives like Brazil Against Fake News and Comunica BR. The G20’s acknowledgement of the far-reaching effects of disinformation and hate speech underscores the significance of this ACHIEVE meeting, paving the way for global cooperation to combat misinformation and force a resilient information ecosystem. So, these are some points that I wrote when Maida was speaking because I think we have a really good experience in Brazil with G20 and I think Maida, it’s very important to have you here to share this contribution with us. So, thank you so much. But now, I’d like to ask Professor Yasmin Curzi to share her contributions. I admire Yasmin’s work very much. I heard her article this week, Gender Information Integrity, and that’s really good. And Yasmin, please, the floor is yours.

Yasmin Curzi: Thank you so much, Ramon. So, the article that Ramon mentioned, it was an invitation by the IT for Change. I thank you so much, Mary, for inviting me to contribute to Botafogo. I’m putting the link here for any of you who have interest and also following this discussion. But what we are proposing, the idea of this article that Mary invited me to contribute with was discussing information integrity through a gender approach, the gender dimension within information integrity. Basically, what I’m trying to link here is how feminist scholarship can contribute to the debate on platform responsibilities and information integrity. Some lessons that… the feminist scholarship could actually be used to be utilized to to inform policymaking on information integrity. I’m being really brief here because I think we need us we still need to have time for Dennis to speak and also to have the Q&A but basically the idea here of the this feminist approach to information integrity is basically two proposals that I think that are central here is the feminist scholarship we have really to address inequity, to address inequality in the in the roots of the cause. So as Mary’s presentation highlighted, we have structural issues regarding information integrity that relates specifically with the media pluralism ecosystem, the lack of media pluralism in the informational ecosystem and the power dynamics that are unequal not only in Brazil but in other in all the countries actually. We need policies to actually decentralize media monopoly. I’m not only talking about the the big text and specifically but also media in general, the TV channels and etc. We need actions and policymaking to enable to foster media diversity in this sense and another lesson from the feminist theory from the feminist scholarship that could also help to inform information integrity debate is to enable more participation in this space, enable more participation from local and regional initiatives to actually bridge this, to bring more diversity. not only to the policymaking, the participation processes, but also to content producing and to moderation. And another thing that feminist theories, feminist activists and scholars have been highlighting, we need, platforms need to open themselves to actually learn with their experiences and the research that feminist scholars and activists have been producing, civil society has been producing reports showcasing how online harassment and coordinated campaigns have been targeting specifically women and LGBT plus individuals who have positions that break the status quo, that dispute the status quo. And this decreases significantly, in fact significantly, the democracy and political participation of minorities. So to address this, they need to improve their content moderation policies. It is a discussion and a point that has been highlighted within the platform responsibilities literature for a long time, but again, as Mary, as Ana Cristina and the other speakers have been highlighting here, we need to address platform’s monopoly. We need to try to talk to these actors and actually make them engage more with human rights in an active stance and not only promoting truth in the internet, but also tackling how the algorithmic ecosystem, how the algorithmic content recommendation systems actually promote hate speech, but it relates to their, the economy attention, relates to… how they profit over this. So we need to actually look at the root of the problem to be able to create efficient solutions in this. These were the ideas that I tried to highlight in this article. Thank you for your time and patience here. I will pass the word now to, pass the floor now to Dennis Hatteker so he can also speak about his research. Thank you so much.

Dennis Redeker: Thank you, Yasmin and thank you everyone already. This was a already a fantastic discussion and I really appreciate different perspectives that we bring together here in this session. I think this is the spirit of the IGF, right? This is the multi-stakeholder perspectives and we just heard some, some, well, Yasmin, some researchers perspectives too. Let me share some research that is very well, very, very fitting to this topic conducted at the University of Bremen. So I have a bit of my academic hat on here in addition to, yes, I think this is, in addition to my hat as the co-chair of the International Rights and Principles Coalition. Can you see the slides of my presentation? I wanted to, I wanted to provide a perspective from a recent 41 country comparative study that we conducted, asking people about their attitudes toward social media platforms. And a number of questions relate very directly, I think, to the question of information integrity, even though the discourse on information integrity that has now become a global discourse. And thank you so much for Brazil and others and UNESCO to championing these efforts also on the state and interstate level. The research was done in 41 countries, as I said, mostly in the global South and Eastern Europe was conducted at the University of Bremen. And the method was essentially web-based online survey with a survey questionnaire in six languages in the end of 2022 and until early 2023. The sample includes about 17,500 people from these countries. Some samples are a little bit better. Some are not as great. We can talk about that. But that’s just as the background. What have the respondents, so those users of Facebook and Instagram, responded to when I asked them to what extent misinformation is a concern to them? It’s one of the questions I had. And I can tell one thing. This is a scale from one to five. And the average is quite high with almost four. So quite a number of people are concerned about misinformation around the world. But it differs according to where you are and which country you live. And I think it differs by a number of other characteristics, too. Why is this important is because we often see this debate on information integrity. I think it’s a global one. It’s a very important one. But it applies, perhaps, in different nuances to different places to different people. We’ve just heard the feminist there. Sorry to interrupt, but there’s some very disturbing new sound right now. I’m not sure where it’s coming from. It looks like it’s still mic or something. Let me double check. Background noise, as it were. Yeah, there’s no background noise here. But I can speak a little bit closer. All right, I’ll do that. I’ll do that now. It’s already the computer. So the comparison here from the survey analyzing by country, we see that, for example, people in Poland have most concern for misinformation whereas people in Haiti have the least concern. There’s a bit of, I think, a global north-south. um tendency here but it’s not not perfect by by far switzerland the only western european country in the sample somewhere in the middle and we do have countries from sub-saharan africa on top of the list including ghana and nigeria um misinformation is the one thing um and but the other thing obviously is um and that’s that’s a question that we wanted to bring in as the rights and principles coalition is to what extent um human rights um are now better protected in the times of social media um and so one question that um that i asked uh was whether people uh thought that since the event of social media uh the following five human rights um have been better or worse protected so has the protection of human rights in other words decreased increased or remain the same and you see the the legend on the right um again this is with seven and a half thousand people uh in a questionnaire um and what we can see here and that’s i think quite interesting is that um and we have to remember that perhaps in spite of hate speech and misinformation the internet is a force to help um to protect the human right to information uh access to information uh people say a large majority that it has increased the protection of that right the protection of the right to freedom of expression has increased two thirds say that there’s some people say a decrease there’s some people who say that state the same equality um it’s interesting and that relates perhaps to mary’s talk also coming with a social justice perspective you know what does it mean for equality that we have these social media platforms uh it’s a split a little bit here so some increase some decrease but most people say it’s the same or has remained the same um life and liberty There’s also quite a number of people, about a third who say since the advent of social media, that protection of that right has decreased. And I think if we talk, think about hate speech specifically, that might actually be one of the drivers of that. There’s also a strong correlation between that answer and a concern for hate speech by those respondents. I don’t have that data with me now. But I think also strikingly, and not surprisingly, the right to privacy is seen by those respondents in those 41 countries to have decreased overwhelmingly, and only some people think that social media has actually increased that protection of that right, or it remained the same. These are just some insights from a survey that hopefully also helps us to contextualize and helps us to, on the one hand, in a way, see, at least in this slide, I would say that some of the rights, particularly the right to information, freedom of expression, obviously, seem to have increased from a human rights perspective. That’s positive. But people have concerns, not just about hate speech, but as I have demonstrated, also a high level of concerns about misinformation. And I think this is something that also the survey shows is that all governments and other actors need to work together on this to realize information integrity across all levels and in all countries. Thank you.

Tapani Tarvainen: Thank you, Dennis. I don’t think we have any prepared speeches left. So should we switch to questions from the audience? Anybody in the room? I think we have questions online as well. Can you read them? Yes, just a minute. I’m muting the

Audience: Hi, can you hear me? Yes, yes. Okay, so thanks everyone for everyone’s speech was very rich. I speak from Brazil. My name is Julia. I’m a researcher at the J. W. Vargas Foundation. And I have a question for everyone. It’s regarding 2024 municipal elections. Since we’re witnessing the rise of influencers across various demands, such as politics, wars, and even in institutional roles on like law enforcement, which are integrating social media into their work. I was wondering about, of course, in my perspective from the Brazilian municipal elections, but also I would like to hear everyone’s call on that. Because there was a noticeable lack of platform responsibility and accountability in moderating harmful content here, specifically including criminally targeting opponents reputation, for example. And this highlights how critical moments elections can be, and remains a major challenge in the digital age. So I would like to hear everyone’s call, if possible. On that given content, how do you assess the performance of social media platforms during the 2024 municipal elections globally? What are the most unacceptable outcomes that you should that you wouldn’t wouldn’t like to see repeated in future of electoral processes? And finally, what do you think are the civil society’s roles in ensuring those unacceptable outcomes? are identified, addressed and taken seriously by platforms. Thank you very much.

Tapani Tarvainen: So, who wants to take on that?

Maira Sato: I can talk a little bit, as I’m here from Brazil also. Yes, we had some incidents in Brazil that were very serious and very damaging to the elections. Just one day before the municipal elections, for example, in São Paulo, we had an influencer who was spreading misinformation regarding the main opponent. And also, in the second round, we had this too. This is a problem that is a structural problem we are dealing with in Brazil. And I think, as we mentioned here, we need to have accountability and we need to have transparency on how… And we have to regulate how social platforms deal with this kind of content. In Brazil, we think that the main issue is to approve the laws that we are discussing in the Congress, and now they are paralyzed, unfortunately. But the government has been trying to address the issue how it can, you know, even without the regulation being approved yet. Our elections court is trying to launch some other regulations and normatives to deal with this kind of thing. But this is a challenge that we really need to address properly in a structural manner. And I think the civil society is very important, actually, in all the moments since 2022, actually, when we also had widespread disinformation during the elections and also in 2018. I think the pressure that the civil society makes is very important also. to ensure that governments try to deal with this in a structural and effective manner. So this is an ongoing discussion still. We are trying to, on the one hand, negotiate and talk to the platforms and try to ensure that they apply their own moderation rules, but also I think we need to advance in the discussion on regulation, actually.

Yasmin Curzi: Thank you so much, Maria. I think we have one more question. I don’t know if any of you wanted to address this question as well. Go ahead, Dennis. You start.

Dennis Redeker: Thank you. It’s just a way of also integrating, obviously, different sessions here at the TIGF. Yesterday, there was a workshop on the question of AI and disinformation during elections, and so your question is so very much valued, and that spoke to that conversation that we had. A researcher from Oxford University, Roxana Radu, brought up the case of the Romanian elections that took place recently, and that, in fact, a court cancelled the results of the presidential elections due to the apparent benefiting of one candidate by a major social media platform, and so the question of transparency is quite acute. The question around information integrity around elections is very important, and this debate that we had illustrated this, illustrated all the challenges that we have with regard to information integrity, and it would be much better, obviously, to have solutions in place beforehand so that elections can take place uninhibited by this rather than having to cancel them afterward. That’s a very dramatic and potentially also problematic democratic practice. So I think that’s something that we brought up in that session. I just wanted to feed that back into this debate.

Ana Cristina Ruelas: Yeah, well, I wanted to mention also that, so for instance, in the guidelines for the governance of digital platforms, one of the things that we highlight in a very important manner is that we need to be careful of labeling content because although it’s true that there’s a lot of systematic disinformation, systematic campaigns of disinformation that can be recognized as subject of restriction, there’s specific pieces of content that should be gone through a due process of law. And this is important because if we consider that elections actually is a moment where there’s special protections for freedom of expression, because it is also important for society to have a plurality and access to information, to a variety of information, we cannot just go and try to regulate, let’s say, a trend or a specific type of content. That’s why one of the things that we, and I’m glad that I was after Dennis, because he mentioned transparency. And I think that what we need to think as civil society, as international organizations, is that we need to ensure that platforms are accountable about the management of systemic risks that they see and they foresee when it comes to elections. So we saw during this elected 2024 election that some of the platforms publish the risk assessment that they did before the process started, but we don’t know, for instance, right now how they evaluated that measures, how often they continue doing this assessment because risk is not a static, risk moves and it is important that when there’s like a process of election, they can move around it. We also don’t know if they actually reinforce some measures that they have in, let’s say, peaceful times and not election times. We do not know how they manage advertising, political advertising during non-election times and during election times. So I think there’s many different elements on transparency, due diligence and accountability that we need to start like putting forward and specifically reinforcing during election times that will be key for the next election periods. And in our side and also on the government side, it is very important to, you know, if that governments also in electoral management bodies try to be transparent on what is the type of requirements that they are placing during the election time and obviously outside elections, but primarily during the election time to platforms. What are the type of content that they are requiring to moderate? What is, for instance, the type of requirements that they are placing for the staff members? This different type of things, you know, when it comes to this multi-stakeholder approach, you know, how also government is being transparent. transparent about the acts that they are putting forward during electoral times, because, you know, it can, it’s, it’s on both sides. So I think that I will share in the chat the guidelines, but there’s these specific elements that I think that are important to move forward. And there’s also a new discussion on those specific measures that should be reinforced during this period, acknowledging that, you know, elections do not start with the electoral, you know, with that extra precedent, but it’s that whole cycle that needs to be revised and updated. And definitely civil society actors should be participating.

Panelist: I just wanted to come in here to just add and also to follow up with, follow up on Anna Christina’s point on the role of electoral management bodies. I think that’s very crucial because in India, speaking from my context, there has been a recognition by the Election Commission on the role played by social media platforms influencing the discourse. So there has been some guidelines of sorts put up to, so they now actively also look into the social media activity. And there are some set of guidelines and the candidates of the political parties have to follow. But the problem here again, is the implementation. So there have been an instance, not one instance, a couple of instances where a major political party had put out a hateful and divisive video against a particular community and that had gone viral. And it took time for, it took a lot of time for the commission to take down, to ask the platform, the platform hadn’t taken down. So it took time to, for the video itself to be taken down. By that time, you know, it must have gone viral. So I think that that coordination between the electoral management, they should more actively look out for such instances. They can’t just trust the social media platforms to monitor the content. So I think the electoral management body, the regulators’ role here is very important. And I mean, they should come up with some comprehensive and concrete SOPs or whatever. That’s very contextualized to the digital world. So yeah, I just want to highlight the importance of coordination between the electoral bodies, the platforms during the election time. Thank you.

Yasmin Curzi: Thank you so much. I have a question of my own actually that I wanted to hear from you. Actually, Mary touched upon a bit on this. Should the responsibility of balancing freedom of expression should lie solely with platform providers or governments and regulatory bodies have a role to play? Which role should be this? And how do you see the stakeholders’ role in this debate? Any experiences of platform regulation that are going well in any countries? The court should have a permanent role as it is, for example, here in Brazil. Or should we think of regulatory bodies within the government, for example, as it is in Turkey or other countries, to more United Kingdom as well? So what do you think about this arrangements? Is there like a good model that we should look as on a horizon or this is not possible yet?

Ana Cristina Ruelas: So. I would not say that we can just yet say that there’s a perfect model. I think that in many of the cases, this is something that we are looking at that is just the proof. For instance, in the case of the European Union, the DSA, the Digital Service Act, just had the first published of the human rights assessment, the risk assessment, just like two weeks ago, three weeks ago. Still, researchers are looking at what they find there. The UK Safety Act is still also in the process of just publishing the mechanisms for managing risk. I think there’s a lot you know, different, you know, to see and for researchers, for civil society to see how this is actually changing the behaviour also for the platforms and engaging new actors in the discussion of digital platform awareness, definitely. In the Asia-Pacific region, Australia has a lot of advances on safety mechanisms that have been put in place. So there’s different models that we have seen all over the place. I think regulatory authorities are also changing also their view and their narratives in order to think broadly on systems and processes, which I think is very, very important because during the 2015 to 2020, we still saw a lot of the solutions as to criminalise content. And now we’re going more on the path of trying to identify how the systems and these processes should be, you know, how this platform should be accountable about the systems and processes that they put in place in order to identify potential harmful content and to deal, you know, etc. with these issues. I think, as I said in the in my last intervention that this published human rights assessments that the platforms did before elections are a good step forward. It is definitely not the only thing that they should do, but I think it is important. And I definitely don’t think that it only relies on the platforms. I think that in order to enable the environment for freedom of expression online, there should be participation of states and there should be participation of civil society, academics, et cetera. But specifically from states actors, one of the things that was mentioned by Mary was this, how do you ensure that once you’re included in the internet ecosystem, you have the digital tools to engage properly and have control over your own content, over your products, et cetera. This, everything means an interaction of different stakeholders that is not only governments and regulators or platforms. So I think there’s definitely a duty, I would say, and it was said as well, from state, for instance, also to protect journalists, you know, which are then, who are then our critical voices that we need to protect also in the digital space. We definitely need investment from the governance system in media development, considering that platforms have already taken most of the advertising models for like for traditional media. So I think there’s many different actions that should be taken by different stakeholders. And it’s not just one side of the, only one thing that corresponds to one on the actor.

Panelist: Yeah, I also, I mean, I’m actually wary of giving either the platform or the state the control over how to, you know, regulate the speech. But both of them have their, you know, I mean, speaking from the Indian laws, I can say that earlier, it allowed platforms to like, platforms were not required to, like that safe harbor protection, right, as long as they are not overseeing it, they, they cannot be held liable. And then there was a court order, which said that, you know, you know, platforms needn’t actually moderate, and actually, all the speech decisions should come from the court, any dispute that you have, it has to go to the court. And if the court says that a content has to be removed, it needs to be removed. But then the problem with that is we know in the in the in the context of internet media, you know, take going to the court and getting an order. It’s really not, you know, helpful for a lot of content, especially related to, you know, online database violence, where quick removal of content is necessary. So then that leads us to rely on the platforms again. But and then there have been, and then we realized that, okay, platforms are not doing the role. So in India, we now currently have a system where if someone is aggrieved of a decision of the platform, then they can go to a government body, which will obviously have government bureaucrats looking at into the decision. And I am there have been concerns about how fair that is going to be. So yeah, I think it’s a tricky thing as to who should have the ultimate say. And as Anna Christina says, it should be a collaborative effort. I think especially I mean, I just want to talk about the on the Australian eSafety Commissioner where they collaborate with the platforms to actively take down content. So I think the civil society role is also important in really taking down harmful content from the internet. Yeah. Thank you.

Yasmin Curzi: Dennis, do you want to add something? Anything as well, or should we break up? No?

Moderator: If not, I might throw in one curveball in the discussion. Have you thought about platforms or platform-like things that are not centralized in a way that they could be controlled by the management? There are some chat tools that are based on onion routing or peer-to-peer communication or whatever, and there is basically no central point where you can choke point, or no company behind it that you can give orders to. How would you regulate those? But if anything can be done about those. Too difficult question, I’m afraid, at this point.

Yasmin Curzi: Does anyone want to address this?

Panelist: Yeah, I mean, I may not have an answer exactly how to regulate them, because even I also feel that, so when we talk about dismantling the centralized structures, we then say, oh, we should have, even in my intervention, I said, we should foster the development of alternative communication platforms, which are decentralized. And there have been excellent, like for example, Mastodon is a federated model, and then there have been instances like Social Corp, which runs on a co-operative model. So while this poses an alternative to the current centralized model, there are still challenges there with respect to moderation. So I’m not really sure how to regulate such platforms, but I feel that they should be explored, and they do have their advantages in giving more, in enabling, instead of some centralized team of moderators, it allows the users also to engage in moderation activities. But again, I don’t know how much it can be scaled on a larger level. where that’s accessible to a lot of people and how to deal with the moderation problem is really something that I’m also thinking about. I would like to hear if anybody else have an opinion on this.

Moderator: Just noted that we have four minutes to go and that Fediverse, Mastodon type thing is solvable, I think, to an extent that it does offer, each Mastodon server is still a server that’s controlled by someone. They have their different moderation policies, but some different approaches are much harder to moderate. But anyway, well, anybody, I have spoken enough, Yasmin, you can carry on whatever you want to say, but three and a half minutes.

Yasmin Curzi: Thank you so much, Stefani. Thank you, Dennis, also for partnering here with the CPR and the IRPC folks as well. Thanks, Anna-Christina and Mary Mohammed for joining us here. Maira Sato had to leave a bit earlier. Thanks, everyone who is watching us online or in person. Apologies again for the technical glitches and et cetera. See you next year. Please keep up with the CPR and the IRPC activities. We have mailing lists if you want to subscribe to us and also to engage with our internal activities within the coalition. Please write me or Dennis, depending on which coalition that you want to join. We much appreciate new people coming in. Thank you so much once again. Hope that you enjoyed the session. See you next time. Bye-bye.

Moderator: Dennis, you have two minutes if you want to say something else.

Dennis Redeker: I just want to say, Richard, thank you so much everyone for speakers, moderators, technical team, and thank you so much for the session and we’ll see you next year at the IGF. Please check out our website and join the email lists.

Yasmin Curzi: So we are finishing in time, more than a minute to go. Perfect. See you in Oslo. Bye bye.

Agreement Points

Need for multi-stakeholder approach to information integrity

Ana Cristina Ruelas

Marrin Muhammed

Yasmin Curzi

Importance of multi-stakeholder approach and human rights framework

Need for structural reforms to address root causes of misinformation

Feminist approach to information integrity to address inequalities

Speakers agree on the importance of involving multiple stakeholders, including governments, platforms, civil society, and academics, in addressing information integrity issues.

Importance of platform transparency and accountability

Ana Cristina Ruelas

Maira Sato

Panelist

Need for transparency and accountability from platforms, especially during elections

Brazil’s efforts to promote information integrity nationally and internationally

Role of electoral management bodies in platform regulation

Speakers emphasize the need for digital platforms to be transparent about their content moderation practices and risk assessments, particularly during elections.

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers argue for addressing structural inequalities in the media ecosystem and promoting diverse participation in content production and moderation.

Marrin Muhammed

Yasmin Curzi

Need for structural reforms to address root causes of misinformation

Feminist approach to information integrity to address inequalities

Both speakers highlight the importance of international cooperation and multi-stakeholder approaches in addressing information integrity issues.

Ana Cristina Ruelas

Maira Sato

Importance of multi-stakeholder approach and human rights framework

Brazil’s efforts to promote information integrity nationally and internationally

Unexpected Consensus

Challenges in regulating decentralized platforms

Moderator

Panelist

Challenges in regulating decentralized platforms

Role of electoral management bodies in platform regulation

There was an unexpected acknowledgment of the difficulties in regulating decentralized platforms, with both the moderator and a panelist recognizing the complexity of applying traditional regulatory approaches to new technological structures.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The main areas of agreement include the need for a multi-stakeholder approach to information integrity, the importance of platform transparency and accountability, and the recognition of structural challenges in addressing misinformation.

Consensus level

There is a moderate level of consensus among the speakers on the broad principles of addressing information integrity. However, there are variations in the specific approaches and solutions proposed. This level of consensus suggests that while there is agreement on the importance of the issue, there is still room for debate on the most effective ways to implement solutions.

Different Viewpoints

Approach to regulating digital platforms

Marrin Muhammed

Ana Cristina Ruelas

Maira Sato

Need for structural reforms to address root causes of misinformation

Importance of multi-stakeholder approach and human rights framework

Brazil’s efforts to promote information integrity nationally and internationally

While Marrin advocates for structural reforms targeting platform business models, Ana Cristina emphasizes a multi-stakeholder approach, and Maira focuses on national and international policy efforts.

Unexpected Differences

Regulation of decentralized platforms

Moderator

Panelist

Challenges in regulating decentralized platforms

Role of electoral management bodies in platform regulation

The moderator raised an unexpected point about the difficulty of regulating decentralized platforms, which contrasts with the focus on regulating centralized platforms discussed by other speakers.

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement revolve around the approach to regulating digital platforms, the balance between freedom of expression and content moderation, and the specific mechanisms for ensuring platform accountability during elections.

difference_level

The level of disagreement among speakers is moderate. While there is general consensus on the importance of addressing information integrity and platform responsibility, speakers differ on the specific approaches and mechanisms to achieve these goals. These differences reflect the complexity of the issue and the need for further dialogue and research to develop effective solutions.

Partial Agreements

All speakers agree on the need for better regulation of platforms during elections, but differ on the specific mechanisms and responsible bodies to achieve this goal.

Ana Cristina Ruelas

Panelist

Maira Sato

Need for transparency and accountability from platforms, especially during elections

Role of electoral management bodies in platform regulation

Brazil’s experience with platform regulation attempts

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers argue for addressing structural inequalities in the media ecosystem and promoting diverse participation in content production and moderation.

Marrin Muhammed

Yasmin Curzi

Need for structural reforms to address root causes of misinformation

Feminist approach to information integrity to address inequalities

Both speakers highlight the importance of international cooperation and multi-stakeholder approaches in addressing information integrity issues.

Ana Cristina Ruelas

Maira Sato

Importance of multi-stakeholder approach and human rights framework

Brazil’s efforts to promote information integrity nationally and internationally

Key Takeaways

Information integrity requires a multi-stakeholder approach involving governments, platforms, civil society, and other actors

Structural reforms are needed to address root causes of misinformation, including platform business models

Human rights and feminist frameworks can inform approaches to information integrity

Transparency and accountability from platforms is crucial, especially during elections

Regulation of digital platforms remains challenging, particularly for decentralized platforms

Resolutions and Action Items

Brazil to launch national chapter of Global Initiative for Information Integrity on Climate Change

UNESCO to manage global fund supporting research and communication projects on information integrity

Continued development of guidelines and principles for digital platform governance

Unresolved Issues

How to effectively regulate decentralized platforms

Balancing freedom of expression with content moderation

Scaling up alternative, decentralized communication platforms while addressing moderation challenges

Finding political will to implement structural reforms of platform business models

Suggested Compromises

Collaborative efforts between platforms, governments, and civil society for content moderation

Balancing platform self-regulation with government oversight and judicial review

Exploring decentralized platform models while maintaining some centralized moderation capabilities

The liberal regulatory playbook of supplier-focused and consumer-focused remedies to restoring health and vibrancy of the public sphere does not address the root cause of the problem, which is the business model of the platforms, the techno-design architecture that foster the hostile digital environment.

speaker

Marrin Muhammed

reason

This comment challenges the conventional approach to regulating platforms and argues for more fundamental structural changes.

impact

It shifted the discussion towards considering more radical solutions like changing platform business models and structures rather than just tweaking existing regulations.

Brazil has been very active to include this concept nationally and internationally in the debate. So, as Brazil was in the presidency of the G20 last year, this year actually, until November, we worked to include this issue, the issue of information integrity in the G20’s agenda and we managed to include an item on information integrity in the G20’s working group on digital economy.

speaker

Maira Sato

reason

This comment highlights concrete policy actions being taken at an international level to address information integrity.

impact

It brought the discussion from theoretical concepts to real-world policy implementation, showing how the debate is translating into action at high levels of government.

The UN Global Principles describe information integrity as, and even in the GDC, when you see GDC, you can see the similar language as fostering a pluralistic information space, one that enables trust, knowledge and individual choice. And no one can dispute that these are important values to achieve. But the question is, what do they mean in practical terms?

speaker

Marrin Muhammed

reason

This comment critically examines the practical implications of high-level principles on information integrity.

impact

It prompted a deeper discussion on how abstract principles can be translated into concrete actions and policies in different contexts.

We need policies to actually decentralize media monopoly. I’m not only talking about the big texts and specifically but also media in general, the TV channels and etc. We need actions and policymaking to enable to foster media diversity in this sense

speaker

Yasmin Curzi

reason

This comment broadens the scope of the discussion beyond just digital platforms to include traditional media, emphasizing the need for overall media diversity.

impact

It expanded the conversation to consider the broader media ecosystem and how it interacts with digital platforms in shaping information integrity.

I think regulatory authorities are also changing also their view and their narratives in order to think broadly on systems and processes, which I think is very, very important because during the 2015 to 2020, we still saw a lot of the solutions as to criminalise content. And now we’re going more on the path of trying to identify how the systems and these processes should be, you know, how this platform should be accountable about the systems and processes that they put in place in order to identify potential harmful content

speaker

Ana Cristina Ruelas

reason

This comment highlights an important shift in regulatory approaches from content-focused to process-focused strategies.

impact

It provided historical context to the evolving regulatory landscape and pointed towards future directions in platform governance.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by moving it from theoretical concepts to practical implementation challenges, emphasizing the need for structural changes in platform business models, highlighting the importance of international cooperation, and broadening the scope to include traditional media. The discussion evolved from identifying problems to exploring concrete solutions and policy actions, while also critically examining the practical implications of high-level principles on information integrity.

How to find the political will to implement structural reforms targeting platform business models and incentive structures?

speaker

Marrin Muhammed

explanation

This was highlighted as a crucial missing piece in addressing the root causes of information integrity issues.

How can we operationalize the concept of information integrity as a public policy?

speaker

Maira Sato

explanation

Brazil is actively working on implementing this concept in specific sectors, indicating a need for practical approaches.

What are effective ways to assess the performance of social media platforms during elections globally?

speaker

Audience member (Julia)

explanation

This is crucial for understanding and improving platform accountability during critical democratic processes.

What are the most unacceptable outcomes in electoral processes related to social media, and how can they be prevented in the future?

speaker

Audience member (Julia)

explanation

Identifying these outcomes is essential for developing targeted strategies to protect election integrity.

What specific roles can civil society play in ensuring unacceptable outcomes are identified, addressed, and taken seriously by platforms?

speaker

Audience member (Julia)

explanation

Understanding civil society’s role is important for creating a comprehensive approach to platform accountability.

Is there a good model for balancing freedom of expression and platform regulation that we should look to as a horizon?

speaker

Yasmin Curzi

explanation

Identifying effective regulatory models is crucial for developing best practices in platform governance.

How can decentralized or peer-to-peer communication platforms be regulated?

speaker

Tapani Tarvainen

explanation

This question addresses the challenges of regulating emerging technologies that lack centralized control points.

Summary

This panel discussion focused on balancing innovation and regulation in the development of large-scale AI systems. The panelists, representing various sectors including privacy, tech companies, and consulting, explored the challenges and approaches to AI governance.

Ivana Bartoletti emphasized the importance of leveraging existing privacy and data protection laws to regulate AI, cautioning against rushing into new AI-specific legislation. She stressed that privacy by design is crucial in AI development, particularly in protecting individual rights and freedoms.

Basma Ammari from Meta highlighted their open-source approach to large language models, emphasizing the importance of fairness, transparency, and safety in AI development. She advocated for principles-based and risk-based regulation rather than stringent new laws that might stifle innovation.

Fuad Siddiqui of EY discussed the concept of an “intelligence grid” comprising connectivity, computing, and control layers. He provided examples of AI applications in agriculture and energy sectors, demonstrating how AI can drive productivity and sustainability.

The discussion touched on the debate between creating comprehensive AI acts versus updating existing laws. Panelists generally favored a more flexible, principles-based approach to regulation. They also addressed concerns about algorithm transparency, data privacy, and the need for diverse, representative data in AI development.

The role of parliamentarians in shaping AI governance was a key theme, with panelists urging lawmakers to define the risks they want to mitigate and the values they wish to protect in the AI era. The discussion concluded with calls for collaboration between the private sector and governments in addressing AI’s impact on the job market and the need for education and upskilling initiatives.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– The role of privacy and data protection laws in regulating AI

– Whether to create new AI-specific regulations or adapt existing laws

– The importance of risk-based and principles-based approaches to AI governance

– The need for transparency and fairness in AI systems and algorithms

– The role of the private sector in responsible AI development and addressing societal impacts

The overall purpose of the discussion was to explore how to balance innovation and regulation for large-scale AI systems, with a focus on the perspectives of private sector companies and the role of parliamentarians in crafting appropriate governance frameworks.

The tone of the discussion was largely collaborative and solution-oriented. Panelists emphasized the need for cooperation between government and industry to address AI challenges. There was a sense of urgency about the need to act, balanced with caution about over-regulating. The tone became more pointed when addressing parliamentarians directly about their responsibilities, but remained constructive overall.

Speakers

– Latifa Al Abulkarim: Moderator

– Ivana Bartoletti: Chief Privacy and AI Governance Officer at Wipro, visiting cyber security and privacy executive fellow at Pompson Business School at Virginia Tech, co-founder of Women Leading an AI Network

– Basma Ammari: Director of Public Policy for MENA region at META

– Fuad Siddiqui: EY’s Global Innovations and Emerging Tech Leader

Additional speakers:

– Maha Abdel Nasser: Parliamentarian from Egypt with engineering background and 30+ years in ICT industry

– Silvia Dinica: Romanian senator with PhD in applied mathematics

– Ailyn Febles: Cuban parliamentarian, president of a civil society organization for technology professionals, university professor

– Mubarak Janahi: Member of the Bahraini Council

AI Governance: Balancing Innovation and Regulation

This panel discussion explored the complex landscape of artificial intelligence (AI) governance, focusing on how to balance innovation with responsible development and regulation of large-scale AI systems. The panelists, representing diverse sectors including privacy advocacy, tech companies, and consulting, offered varied perspectives on the challenges and approaches to AI governance.

Key Themes and Arguments

1. Leveraging Existing Laws vs. Creating New AI-Specific Regulations

A central point of debate was whether to create comprehensive new AI laws or adapt existing regulatory frameworks. Ivana Bartoletti, Chief Privacy and AI Governance Officer at WEPRO, strongly advocated for leveraging existing laws, particularly in the realms of privacy, consumer protection, and anti-discrimination. She argued, “Privacy regulation, consumer regulation, discrimination-related regulation, liability, all these things already apply to AI.”

In contrast, Basma Ammari, Director of Public Policy for MENA region at META, emphasized a risk-based and principles-based approach to regulation. This difference in approach highlights the complexity of crafting effective AI governance strategies and the divergent views on regulation approaches.

2. Privacy and Data Protection in AI Development

There was significant discussion on the critical importance of privacy and data protection in AI governance. Bartoletti stressed that privacy by design is crucial in AI development, particularly in protecting individual rights and freedoms. She emphatically stated, “Whoever tells you that there is a dichotomy between privacy and AI, please do not believe them.” This comment directly challenges the notion that privacy must be sacrificed for AI advancement.

Ammari echoed this sentiment, highlighting META’s commitment to developing AI systems with privacy, safety, fairness, and transparency in mind. She mentioned watermarking as a technique for ensuring transparency in AI-generated content.

3. Open-Source Approaches and Transparency

Ammari highlighted META’s open-source approach to large language models, explaining, “META has adopted an open source methodology with its large language model. What that means is that these large language models are made available for practically everyone to use, to build on.” This strategy, she argued, not only improves access to AI but also enhances the fairness and transparency of AI models through collaborative development.

4. The Role and Challenges of Parliamentarians in AI Governance

The discussion emphasized the crucial role of parliamentarians in shaping AI governance, while also highlighting the challenges they face. Bartoletti urged lawmakers to define the specific risks they want to mitigate and the values they wish to protect in the AI era. This call to action highlighted the need for parliamentarians to gain a deep understanding of AI technologies to govern them effectively.

Several audience members raised important questions about how parliaments can leverage AI in their own work, monitor the implementation of AI-related laws, and establish research centers focused on digital innovation and AI. These questions underscored the significant challenges parliamentarians face in understanding and legislating on AI matters.

5. AI Infrastructure and Applications

Fuad Siddiqui, EY’s Global Innovations and Emerging Tech Leader, introduced the concept of an “intelligence grid” comprising connectivity, computing, and control layers. He explained, “As you have built electricity networks, you have an electricity grid, you would be building an intelligence grid.” This analogy helped frame AI development in terms of large-scale infrastructure, leading to considerations of national strategies and public-private partnerships.

Siddiqui provided specific examples of AI applications in agriculture and energy sectors. In agriculture, he mentioned AI’s role in optimizing crop yields, reducing water usage, and improving pest control. For the energy sector, he discussed AI’s potential in optimizing energy distribution and facilitating the transition to renewable energy sources.

6. Addressing Societal Impacts of AI

The discussion touched on the broader societal impacts of AI, particularly its effect on the job market. Panelists agreed on the need for collaboration between the private sector and governments to address workforce impacts through education and upskilling initiatives. Ammari provided an example of META’s partnership with Tawaiq Academy in Saudi Arabia for AI education.

7. Digitizing National Archives

Ammari highlighted the importance of digitizing national archives (with appropriate privacy protections) to improve AI training data. This suggestion emphasized the role of governments in providing high-quality, diverse data sets for AI development.

Unresolved Issues and Future Directions

Despite the productive discussion, several key issues remained unresolved:

1. How to effectively regulate AI algorithms without stifling innovation

2. Addressing cross-border issues in AI governance

3. Finding the appropriate balance between framework/principles-based approaches versus strict AI laws

4. Ensuring AI systems remain fair and unbiased over time

The panel suggested several action items and areas for further exploration:

1. Parliamentarians should focus on understanding AI to govern it effectively

2. Governments should consider digitizing national archives to improve AI training data

3. More research is needed on how to monitor and validate AI systems long-term

4. Exploring public-private collaborations to balance innovation and regulation

5. Creating a future foresight council for technology assessment, as suggested by Siddiqui

Conclusion

The discussion revealed divergent views on AI governance approaches, particularly regarding regulation strategies. However, there was general agreement on the importance of privacy, data protection, and responsible development in AI.

The dialogue highlighted the complexity of AI governance and emphasized the necessity of ongoing collaboration between government, industry, and civil society to develop effective AI policies that balance innovation with responsible development and use. The challenges faced by parliamentarians in understanding and legislating on AI underscore the need for continued education and engagement on these issues.

Latifa Al Abulkarim: Assalamu alaikum and good morning ladies and gentlemen in the second day of the parliamentary track and a very warm welcome again to Riyadh. Though the weather is really cold and cooler than usual, but I’m sure that this session’s conversation will warm us up and this valuable insights and information, especially that we are having it with our, with the parliamentarians, maybe I would say core stakeholders with the private sector. So today we are going to discuss their searching at the frontier and knowing more about how to balance innovation and regulation in practice while developing large-scale AI systems. Please join me in welcoming our esteemed panelist Ivana Bartoletti, Chief Privacy and AI Governance Officer at WEPRO. I will give a quick bio about Ivana. She’s a privacy and data protection professional and visiting cyber security and privacy executive fellow at Pompson Business School at Virginia Tech. She helps global organizations with their privacy by design programs and privacy and ethical challenges relating to AI and big data. She’s also the co-founder of Women Leading an AI Network, a lobby group of women from different backgrounds aimed to mobilize the tech industry and politics to set clear governance of AI. Next we have Basma Amari, the Director of Public Policy for MENA region at META. She leads a team that focuses on tech regulations and policies, promote platforms, integrity and support innovation ecosystem. By practice, BESMA is an international development and public policy professional with 20 years of experience, having worked at the World Bank, Washington, D.C. and Africa and MENA, as well as social impact organizations and governments in these regions. BESMA also worked across several sectors and contexts, from education to health and community development and across several countries, including in conflict and post-conflict zones in West and East of Africa and MENA. Prior to META, BESMA served at the Prime Minister’s Office of the UAE as Advisor in Strategy and Innovation. She has a Bachelor in Economics and Finance and holds an MBA degree. Last but not least, we have Fuad Siddiqui, he’s EY’s Global Innovations and Emerging Tech Leader. As the EY, Global Consulting Innovation and Emerging Tech Leader, Fahad helps clients unlock new value through techno-economic foresight and challenge established thinking and advocate for inclusive and sustainable growth models. He brings more than 20 years of experience spanning international markets and advising clients on diversification strategies and how to win by capitalizing on the next technological evolution. Thanks so much all for joining us and let me explain that the main goal of this session is to open this channel between the parliamentarians and the private sectors to hear from our esteemed panellists how these companies are designed. designing AI systems or LLMs to enhance productivity? Why without compromising any ethical standards? And what’s exactly their views when it comes to AI regulation? Are they with soft self regulations? And what exactly we mean by sandboxes? And how is it related to the main regulations that we are doing at the parliaments? And are you with those companies who is always coming and saying to the parliaments, please regulate the market? Or you are now having your own strategy or gradual thinking about how the new technologies and digital technologies in general be regulated? And what are the safety and social impacts of LLMs? And how to mitigate the different types of risks? As we know, it’s not only categorized by low and high risk, but it’s also something related to the geopolitical risks and further risks. So I will start by you, Ivana, please explain to us what does privacy by design look like in practice? And how can companies embed it within the AI development life cycle?

Ivana Bartoletti: Thank you so much. And it’s absolutely great to be here. I just wanted to start by saying that I find I think this is really, really important session, because all around the world, politicians like yourselves are grappling with what is AI and does it need ad hoc regulation or not? As somebody who has grown within the privacy field, by saying that privacy plays a huge role when it comes to artificial intelligence. And I want you to understand that a lot of countries around the world at the moment, they have been creating privacy and data protection regulation. Saudi, for example, which is very important because one of the risk related to AI is really about the right and freedoms and the right of data subjects, individuals, and the fact that individuals, data need to be protected and secured when it comes to artificial intelligence. My first encouragement to parliamentarians is to not jump into this, we have to regulate AI. This is because it’s really important that in your countries, you look at how is AI governed and regulated right now. Privacy regulation, consumer regulation, discrimination-related regulation, liability, all these things already apply to AI. To parliamentarians, I wanted to say, don’t think that AI does not exist in isolation. It does not. Already a lot of things, a lot of existing legislation that we have across different countries, they apply to artificial intelligence. AI is not an excuse to say, well, we don’t care about existing regulation, that we’re going to create new ones. First of all is, make sure that we do not jump into regulation like this. Privacy is important because a lot of the harms that we discussed, for example, in the opening session yesterday, they will affect. individuals. And this is important because when we talk, for example, about harms that come from AI, so for example, if you use algorithms to make decisions, or if you train large language systems by taking the data that comes from, for example, from all around the web, what you’re talking about is people, okay? And therefore, privacy legislation is important because it will protect a lot of individuals and it will force organizations to, as much as possible, build up privacy, security, and legal protection by design into what they do. Now, governance comes on many different levels. Governance comes from companies. So we, as organizations, we have to do all we can to be responsible. So you, as parliamentarians, you’re in command. You have to say, companies, you have to be responsible for what you’re doing. Show us, show us the best practice, right? Then there is regulation and governance that come from state and governments, and then there is the international sort of governance, for example, that we are building here in the Internet Governance Board. On companies, privacy by design means that you say to organizations, and this is why your privacy laws are important, privacy is not an afterthought. So if you’re using AI to recruit individuals, for example, to say, I’m going to hire this person, I’m going to promote this person, I’m going to give this person housing, I am going to decide whether this person goes to jail or not. Whatever you’re using AI for, you have to make sure that you have you know what data you’re using, you know the data is accurate, you know that you’re not discriminated against to certain individuals because you’re not done enough due diligence on the data and all the other possible sources of bias, and you’re transparent, and you have to say to companies, well actually, and I come from AI Governance for a company, there is no excuse, you have to be transparent in a meaningful way and demand companies, so for example, if you think about the European AI Act, the European AI Act doesn’t, that a lot of people criticise, doesn’t really add much, it only says, it’s legislation in Europe around AI, it only says, before you market a product, you have to demonstrate that you have done your due diligence, including privacy by design, security by design, it’s not that it comes up with other requirements, it just says before you hit the market, that’s what you need to do. So, just to conclude, privacy by design is important, there are a lot of challenges in privacy in AI, obviously, because, just to be clear, discriminative AI, which is sort of the machine learning, what we know so far, is different from the generative AI, LLMs, so we’re talking about different things, and doing privacy in one area is very different from LLMs, where, for example, by design, it’s difficult to say privacy by design in LLMs, you know, what does that really mean? So, there’s a lot of things that we need to unpack in this, but please leverage your privacy legislation and data protection legislation to ensure that the data of your citizens, and people living in your countries, are safeguarded in AI.

Latifa Al Abulkarim: Thank you so much, I have a lot of questions, but I’m trying not to ask for now, to keep it for later, but, so, you are recommending… that we need to focus on the privacy laws, personal data protection laws, security, for example, guidelines, and thinking about existing laws and how could we, maybe it needs amendments somehow. So this is something that we also need to think about. And thinking about the relation between or the oversight of the parliamentarians on the private work. So we want to make sure what the private companies are doing. Are they following certain governance structure or framework? Do they need to improve that framework somehow? So this is your recommendation. However, what’s happening now, we have the AI Act. And for example, I would say the Chinese approach, they started with, yeah, exactly, with different gradual laws. And now they are trying to merge it into one AI Act. So I don’t know if this is kind of the end journey of several laws to have a one combined law at the end, or do we need to still have the Canadian? I think they are following this, your approach of having like amendments to some of the existing post office. That’s very interesting. Maybe we’ll come to Basma now about, Ivana has mentioned why, and we want to know what from your side about how should companies developing AI systems to address risks arising and mitigating any misuse from the technology? And do you use any human centric design when it comes to, for example, Lama, Meta as in one of those elements? Thank you. Good morning. Sabah al khair.

Basma Ammari: That’s a very good question. I think it’s a natural continuation of what my friend Ivana was just speaking about. One thing to note, before I start speaking is that AI has been there for a very long time. So AI is what has been underpinning the tools that Meta uses. So what you see and what you’ve been seeing on your Instagram or Facebook accounts since the early days is powered by AI. The content that you see, the recommendability of content is also underpinned by AI. So that’s sort of the first point. But as we move into Gen AI, Meta has adopted an open source methodology with its large language model. What that means is that these large language models are made available for practically everyone to use, to build on. And why we do that, why Meta decided to do that is not completely altruistic. It’s really to, one, improve access to AI, but also to make these models better. And what I mean by better, it means the more people, the more experts, the more developers are building on these large language models. You are helping us strip biases, societal biases, for example, from being adopted by the AI. By getting more people around the world and more diverse people from around the world feeding into these large language models, you are supporting it in becoming fairer, more transparent, and more representative. So when we think about risks, what we’re really asking are the very difficult questions around ethics, around ethics of AI, around the responsible development of AI. We focus this on four core areas. One is privacy, which Ivana covered extensively, but privacy is a very important one. AI models are built on data sets. We need to ensure that these data sets respect privacy and privacy measures. The second one is a focus on safety. So these large language models do not become available at the minute of their development or invention. They go through iterations, several ones, and guardrails are built into these large language models to ensure that they are safe for use, that they do not have any dangerous information. And META has an agreement with the National Safety Institute, with the US government. So nothing comes out before it sort of goes through these safety checks. And the other one is fairness. Fairness is very, very important because again, AI is built on data sets. If the data sets are only coming from the global north, it means that this part of the region, and me as an Arab, this means that my culture and my history is not being reflected in the AI. Even if we’re asking AI, whether it’s social questions or political questions, it can be one-sided. So how does META and other companies ensure that these models are as fair and representative as possible? We do that by one, making it open source, but two, by engaging a large group of experts within the company and outside of the company in testing. In testing the AI and frequently before releasing it to ensure that. in all the languages that it’s available, and in all the languages, sorry, and in all the countries where it becomes available, it is representative. And the last one is transparency, which is also very important. How do we ensure that these models and whatever they’re producing is transparent? So we have techniques such as watermarking, ensuring that this will help protect against deep fakes and brand impersonations and so on. I can keep on going, but the summary of all of this is that one, it’s in the design that we monitor for risks. It’s not necessarily through going after stringent and inflexible regulations and new regulations. Because regulations exist, how do we ensure that these regulations include in one way or another AI without stifling innovation? That’s one. And then two is following a principles-based approach and a use case approach. So let’s regulate in a risk-based manner rather than regulate the AI itself, because AI is out of the box. And if we decide to go for a full-fledged regulation, what we might find ourselves in is that we’re falling behind as nations in promoting innovation. Thank you.

Latifa Al Abulkarim: Thank you so much, Basma. So you are promoting here risk-based regulation, use case-based regulation and principles. So, yeah. So if I want to compare between principles and risks in terms of regulations, which one do you think is the best approach? Because we had this discussion for a long time with different regulators. And shall we, for example, follow the AI Act approach as a risk-based regulation or principles-based regulations?

Basma Ammari: I would say- principles-based regulations, and through partnerships also between the private sector industry and the public sector. But I also think that they go hand in hand. So if you’re designing with the right principles, you’re mitigating against the risk. It’s just that I think it’s much more flexible when it comes to principles, like the risk is going to be a very detailed one. Well, this is one, like I would say, areas of discussion that is always on the table when it comes to AI regulations.

Latifa Al Abulkarim: Very interesting. So, Fuad, your bio inspired me for a lot of questions related to the relations between EYs and the clients that you are working with. So as private sector is a core driver of entrepreneurial and entrepreneurships and innovation, how has the development of and implementation of AI addressed the social needs and in various parts of the world? So if you have examples that would be great in different sectors and different domains, that would be very helpful.

Fuad Siddiqui: Thank you. Good morning. Yeah, I’m delighted to be here. And it’s always great to be back in Saudi. I was seeing all the greatest innovations happening and pushing the limits of AI systems innovation as well here. So that’s fantastic. And for my esteemed colleagues and parliamentarians, I would say that I see yourselves as the future technologists. You are almost not a politician anymore. I think as we go into the next decades, you all will be the future technology leaders driving the future of your countries. So I think just one thing before I give some examples on what sectors are driving certain innovations, one of the level setting that’s really important is to understand when we talk about AI itself, AI by itself is not just a technology. It’s a combination and intersection of a number of technologies that has to work together hand in hand to deliver the business. outcomes. So, as you have built electricity networks, you have an electricity grid, you would be building an intelligence grid. That intelligence grid, in my opinion, comprises of three Cs. One is what I call the basic connectivity layer. How do you move data around? So, you have built 5G networks, and you’re getting into 6G networks, and you have space technologies, satellites and all. So, movement of the data in a secure way, in a high-performance way, in a low-latency way will be critical. Then you have a computing layer where you would have computing infrastructure, where you would be housing your data and federating data. Then you have a control layer around software systems and AI systems that are embedded within that. That three-layered structure of connectivity, computing and control is what I call an intelligence grid. And for nations, in order for them to protect their sovereignty and data and innovate and drive new investments in your setup, I think that infrastructure management would be very important. So, that’s really important. Now, what I’m now seeing is that whether it’s manufacturing, agriculture, healthcare, a flavor or a permutation of the three C model is being implemented. Let me give you a couple of examples. So, we’ve been working with a large pharmaceutical biotechnology company, Bayer. You may have heard of the name. So, they have a unit called Bayer Crop Science Unit. They have a long history of developing a lot of insights and feeding agro-economics advisors who then in turn go to the farmers to help them understand how they should act, what is the type of crop understanding they need to have to drive better yields, et cetera. Now, what has happened traditionally is that in order to develop the synthesis of on very specific needs for a specific crop type, it took a lot of time, but they built a library of knowledge. Now with GNI coming in, you are working and bringing with a partner with Microsoft on the cloud layer, we are trying to democratize this whole piece. So now we are developing this agentic systems around this in order to make sure that the agro-economic role becomes much more ubiquitous, much more fast, so that now that knowledge that was residing in terms of how much, what this crop needs to do to drive better precision growth, what kind of nutrient levels, what kind of water levels I need to have, you can now disseminate this information in a much more ubiquitous and democratic fashion. So we are very proud in driving that because not only from a business perspective, we’re now seeing a whole effect around the value chain in that context. So just one more, I think I would like to say is that this is from the, we talked a little bit about privacy and consumer side of things, but when you look at nation’s GDP growth and where some of the workforce is employed, even Saudi and UAE and other places, energy sector is very important as well. So what we’re seeing is there’s a client that I’m working with who basically have now instituted a program around digitalization of their oil wells. And that’s really important because if you look, if you understand the oil and gas sector, it’s a very geo-diverse sector. You have oil wells in remote locations and any fluctuation in the conditions of the well will have a dramatic impact to the production capacity. So what this process is now doing with AI systems and this model that the intelligence grid is that you’ve digitalized the well, sensorized the wells, put AI systems on the well. And then you basically use AI algorithms in a cloud setting to try to monitor and control those wells. What it has done is two things. not only improved the production capacity and the disruption that happens if any of the instability in the environment, it has also reduced the ability to go out and do remote visits. What it has done is reduce the emissions and sustainability impact. So, you see that it’s a chain of cross technologies implemented in such a way that could drive critical infrastructure to drive better productivity, safety, efficiency, and that’s the whole notion of resilient economies at the back of this intelligence grid, if I will.

Latifa Al Abulkarim: Thank you. Thanks so much. A lot of interesting work here and I’m sure that you are working on convincing your clients about these benefits from different perspectives, either economic or social benefits. I will open the floor now. I don’t know how many, yeah, I’ll just short, I don’t know if Celine is here. No? Okay. Okay. We have then, I will open the floor for questions. So, we’ll start from Sahar and then we’ll go back here. We’ll finish from this side. Please. Where’s the mic? Yeah. We have a good number of questions. So, I don’t know how many minutes left. Can we just 15? Okay, good.

Audience: Thank you very much for this insightful session. My name is Maha Abdel Nasser. I’m from Egypt, parliamentarian from Egypt, and at the same time, I have an engineering background and more than 30 years in the ICT industry. So, I have the two hats, the parliamentarian hat and the expert hat. And actually, we have now this debate about the legislation or having an AI act in Egypt or just framework. And I’ve been talking to the minister himself. He wants an act. and they want a framework. And in the industry, they want it to be just a framework or regulation because, of course, doing any changes to the Act, it takes a very long time and the technology is moving extremely fast. So we didn’t still have this, but I think what you’re saying is extremely right, that we need to work on the legislations of data because if we could do good legislations for classifying the data and the free flow of data and all these things, this will help the AI. We don’t need to do anything else, maybe just the ethics for the AI. The main question for me is the privacy. I think, and I’ve been with people from Meta in a roundtable, that we will have to sacrifice our privacy for the sake of AI in the future and to leverage all the benefits from AI. So will this be the case or not?

Latifa Al Abulkarim: Thank you so much. So who’s next? Please, because I will come back to you here.

Audience: Thank you, Dr. Latifa, and thank you to all the speakers for very informative talks. Two points, Zwick. First, I like the Act. I think all parliaments now in the world, everyone is working somehow and there are debates and there will still be some debates. The question would be, do you think from your experience, from what you see, is it enough to have, as you said, like some general regulations and not to be as an Act, especially AI, as you mentioned, Mr. Fouad. It will be, I will intervene in all aspects of our lives, I mean, by day now, by minute. So I like also what Ms. Ivana said about the about, I think, to enforce maybe the companies to say, okay, show me what you have, show me your regulations so at least I can follow up with you before I launch your products. The final, sorry, the final point would be, I think the most important in AI, we are all almost programmers, I’m from IT perspective of computer science, is the algorithm. The algorithm, we know, big companies and all companies, they have the brain. The most important is not only the technology, it is the algorithm. So how can we enforce or maintain or make sure this algorithm will not support even, I don’t know, will support privacy, will not support discrimination against race, religion, ethnicity, whatever. So again, all talks is more not about the algorithms. So how, and I think companies will not say, okay, I’ll show you my goal. My goal is the algorithm. Thank you very much.

Latifa Al Abulkarim: Thanks so much. I will go to this side. I will have more questions, then I will come back here. Can you be please concise into making sure that’s one minute, not more. Where’s the mic? Oh, please, yeah.

Audience: Okay, thank you very much. Radical change in technology. As I see, IGF, Internet Government Forum. And what we’ve been talking from yesterday to today, always we’re talking about AI. And AI is the game, AI is the name. And of course, as you mentioned about the oil and all that, in 1981, I made my master degree for controlling the moisture in the natural gas coming from the well. So we was the microprocessor at that time and control system. So AI has been there. Now, the thing is, we’re talking here about parliaments and how parliaments can, or Majalis Shura, to benefit from this technology. As you know, governments or executive part of the. state, you find that they are advanced in adopting technologies, while in parliaments you find them still they are legislating and writing laws, but how do you see the laws that you execute? How is it executed in the government? Rules and regulations, if you want to monitor or see the performance of these laws on the ground, then you need to use some sort of an AI to advance in taking what is called the what-if, what-if the decision, because you have to see if your laws are doing the right things or not. I think we need some sort of a roadmap and also a proposal of a model that parliaments can adopt to know how to deal with the government activities. Thank you very much.

Latifa Al Abulkarim: Thank you.

Audience: Thank you very much for organizing this discussion. My name is Silvia Dinica. I’m a Romanian senator, but also I have a PhD in applied mathematics. One of you said earlier that these models have been around for quite some time, but to be honest, with my experience in the parliament, I would say that the parliamentarians have a very difficult homework ahead dealing with the AI models. Also because the impact of these models is quite huge in a lot of layers of day-by-day life, and they have to deal with it. They have to put out the framework that is fair, is inclusive, doesn’t let anyone behind. and it’s not quite anything they’ve seen before because most of the know-how is outside of the parliament and we need to bring it inside and we need to put it in the hand of the legislator. So my question for you is how do you see the involvement of the private sector taking into account the effects on the job market, on the education, all the effects of artificial intelligence? How do you see the involvement of the private sector in such a way that we are all doing well as a society? Thank you.

Latifa Al Abulkarim: We have one here. And this is the last question. Celine. I wish that we have more time and we’ll come back to you. I didn’t forget you.

Audience: Good morning, I’m Aileen Febles, a Cuban parliamentarian. I’m also president of a civil society organization that brings together professionals in the technology sector. And I’m a university professor. So I have, the parts I’m interested in are a little bit confluenced in our case. In Cuba, we don’t have a law on artificial intelligence. We prefer to work first on a strategy for the development of artificial intelligence and then regulate artificial intelligence. We have a law for the protection of personal data, but I add to the previous parliamentarian asking what experience we have then in making this happen. Because what is most difficult for us is to legislate. We legislate, especially on technological issues, but to make it happen. Secondly, if there is any experience in the use of AI to legislate. I think it would be very interesting the support that artificial intelligence gives to parliamentarians, to legislators, when it comes to decision-making in the laws that we approve on other issues. But, well, we can start in particular with that law on artificial intelligence. What lessons learned? and if there is any lesson or any experience on this topic. Of course, the barriers always affect. The barriers because the barriers capture, that is, artificial intelligence works with data, the data is captured. Those of us who do not have access to everything, or we have barriers in access, because we cannot provide data from which artificial intelligence feeds to be able to offer their answers, but there is also a gap in the processing capacity. And in that, private companies can contribute a lot to those of us who have that gap in the processing capacity, that we can have our own data, national data, data that we have collected, normalized, standardized, but that we do not have the processing capacity to be able to use it for the good of our citizens. So, it’s like three questions in one, but for those three lines, basically. Peace be upon you. I am Mubarak Janahi from the Bahraini Council. I have a question. Is there a direction to establish parliamentary research centers dedicated to the development and encouragement of digital innovation and artificial intelligence in cooperation with the private sector? Is there a direction to establish parliamentary research centers dedicated to the development and encouragement of digital innovation and artificial intelligence in cooperation with the private sector? Thank you so much. Thank you.

Latifa Al Abulkarim: Okay, so we start with, I’m trying to cluster those questions somehow. So we have the question regarding framework versus act. I think it’s almost the same question between Maha and Salih and regulating the algorithm itself, or how can we know more about the algorithm? There’s another question from Gwana related to the same thing, that AI app is a good start in terms of regulation. But how can we move from having drafts into enforcement, legal enforcement? So these are, I would say, almost the same type of questions. So who would like to start first? Ivana, maybe?

Ivana Bartoletti: Yeah. So thank you. Excellent questions. So I wanted to just start with a provocation. I mean, you are the parliamentarians, you make the rules. But you are really faster than the parliamentarians. No, I’m not. Let me finish. But you make the rules, and it’s important because AI is great, we’ve seen it, all the things that we talked about. But also there are risks. The risks to privacy, security, disinformation, all of that. Now, I always say there’s a good AI and we have seen a bad AI. Now, you need to make sure that in your countries, you do all you can to stop the bad AI. Because otherwise people will say, well, actually, I’m not going to trust this. I’m not going to use it. I’m not going to do that. Okay, first point. And that depends on the Romanian parliamentarian or senator. Of course, it’s difficult because a lot of the know-how is not in the parliament, but hold on a second. Hold on a second. AI is not just technology. It involves data, the way that we see the world, and that’s your job. That’s your job. The way you want to be in 10, 20, 30 years, that’s your job. Okay? And I’m saying this because it’s really important for the future that the decision about where AI is going belongs to those who govern these countries. Now, what does the private sector do? Okay? We can work with you. You can consult. You can ask. We can simplify things and give you the technical know-how. But ultimately, what I’m trying to say here is that I think it’s fair to say that a lot of private sector organisations, we’re saying to government, you know, the ball is in your court on this. That’s important. But I wanted to say one thing. On privacy, for example, whoever tells you that there is a dichotomy between privacy and AI, please do not believe them. Do not. You can ask companies to say, well, enforce privacy. Okay? You can say, and a lot of things, we need more research. You can address where the research needs to go. How we can interrogate algorithms without actually accessing them is research. We can invest and you can decide where you want a lot of the research to go. And it’s important that we invest in research on issues such as how do we keep monitoring algorithms? How do we validate them 10 years down the line? How do we make sure that we control them? How do we leverage AI itself to do a lot of this work? So where you want to go and where you want the research to go, it’s important. Now, the European AI Act, to me, and I’m a European and I’m someone who’s been involved, it’s a good step. It’s not perfect. It’s not perfect by all means. But what it says is, based on the risk, and how do you define the risk? You define them. In the European AI Act, the risks are defined as safety based on the product legislation that we have in Europe, and AI that may infringe upon the rights that we share as Europeans. Okay, that’s Europe. You define what the risks are. And whether you enact new laws, or whether you say, I update existing laws, copyright, for example, privacy, consumer, whether you update what you have, whether you enact a new law, it’s the mindset that you need to change. The mindset is, these are the risks I feel. This is what I want to protect. What is that you, in your countries, you want to protect in the age of AI? So it’s the other way around. And I encourage MPs to think the other way around.

Latifa Al Abulkarim: Thank you. Thanks so much. Well, there is somehow a cross border. So this is where maybe they are quite worrying about when we are importing some technologies, and the technology that we are using, then there is where’s the line that we could, maybe I would consider those risks that is national risks, but I have also to consider those risks that is I didn’t choose it. But it’s there. So I know it’s very interesting discussion, Basma, your points. There are two topics mainly about the same thing, the legislations and different matters and directions and the innovation. I will leave the innovation side to you, Fuad, about when we need use cases for the parliamentarians, AI use cases and innovation centers to help them.

Basma Ammari: Yeah, I mean, I’m not going to touch upon, sorry, I’m not going to touch upon the same issues that Ivana covered. But I heard, I think, two questions. One was about the algorithm and what do we do with the algorithm to ensure that it’s not adopting our existing biases in society. And there’s plenty of them. And one of the godfathers of AI that is a professor at NYU but is also an advisor at Meta, who’s Yann LeCun, one of the things he advocates for, and he encourages governments around the world to do, is to digitize your national archives. Strip them out of private information. So no names, no ages, all of that. But even that information, even if it stays, goes through privacy checks before it’s used for any AI to begin with, at least speaking for Meta. So one is digitizing national archives, which guarantees languages out there, so using local language, local culture, music, history, and so on. Making that available in a digital form becomes information that the AI can feed into. And in practice, then this makes the AI more representative, as I said earlier. So that’s one thing.

Latifa Al Abulkarim: And I’m trying to think of a question related to. from Romania about how can we ensure that the models are something similar to the algorithms, fair and inclusive, and the private sector role in terms of the market and the labor, right? Yeah, the market and labor. Yeah. In terms of workforce.

Basma Ammari: I mean, this was every time there’s a tech revolution, historically, we do see, you know, loss of jobs, but then the creation of new jobs. And will no jobs be lost? No, some jobs are being lost. That’s the reality. And this is a technological revolution, we are in the middle of it. So we have a responsibility as industry, and as governments to come together to really upskill and integrate and innovate around our stagnant education systems. One example here, actually, from Saudi Arabia, META opened up an academy in partnership with Tawaiq Academy to upskill the upcoming generation in tools for AI and tools for the metaverse. We graduated the first cohort last year, we’re graduating the about 1000 students in the AI curriculum this year. And so this is, I think, our collective responsibility. And yes, industry has a big, big role to play here.

Latifa Al Abulkarim: Thank you so much, Basma. One minute, but please, we have you have a new task about from the parliamentarians to EY, to collaborate together, and trying to find new use cases for the parliamentarians to help them using AI to for helping them like summarizing legislations and knowing the gaps and others.

Fuad Siddiqui: So one thing, so just to sum up, in a minute, I think, I fully understand the complexity of your jobs here at stake. And I don’t think it’s the government has to drive it. The private sector is equally responsible. One of the things that I have a lot of friends in the industry, and one of the private sector leader in the US. told me that we develop something, a solution for a particular something, we almost treat it as a hammer. So everything we see is a nail, right? We’re trying to drive a hammer to that problem. Now, if you look at it, the reason I gave the example of intelligence grid is you as parliamentarian have to think around who your trusted ecosystem will be and use them to drive an understanding of how that cross-pollination of knowledge will happen. I’ll give you one concrete example. We’re working with the government at the moment, and what they have done very well is they’ve developed something called the concept of future technology observatory. And what they’ve asked us to do, or some of the consulting firms to do, is to help them understand what’s coming down the pipe, but develop a model. If something around agentic systems or autonomous AI systems, what will that do to the different government entities and others? So we’re developing something called a future tech index to understand the inception of that technology around few dimensions around security, around regulation, around ecosystem impacts, and so on and so forth. And then using that as a basis to then test it with the recipient entity to see what is the maturity level and how can we work together. What that does is to give you a concrete roadmap, then you can have a better position to drive the discussion down with the private sector or specific companies that are giving you that technology itself. So I think that itself, the bottom line is it’s almost creating a future foresight council now, which is driving the mandate, not just to show me how this particular new thing is going to work, but how it works in association with the other. Because you all have taken, I’ll give you an example. If you take a medicine, you have a side reaction, you don’t know how it’s interacting with something else, right? So this is the same issue. If somebody proves you my system works, it’s not enough until you see how the ecosystem works, right? And that’s really the important thing. So I’ll stop there.

Latifa Al Abulkarim: Thank you so much. I remember a quote from a friend. And he said, we know how to build it, but we don’t know how to use it. So thank you so much, everyone, for joining us in this very intense, I would say, discussion and looking forward for more collaboration between the private sector and the different parliaments that is here. Thank you so much. And please, I would like to welcome the new panellists and moderator to the stage. Thank you.

Agreement Points

Existing laws and regulations are relevant to AI governance

Ivana Bartoletti

Basma Ammari

Existing laws already apply to AI, new specific AI laws may not be needed

Risk-based and principles-based regulation is preferable to strict AI-specific laws

Both speakers argue that existing laws and regulations can be applied to AI governance, and that creating entirely new AI-specific laws may not be necessary or beneficial.

Privacy and data protection are crucial in AI governance

Ivana Bartoletti

Basma Ammari

Privacy and data protection laws are important for governing AI

AI systems should be designed with privacy, safety, fairness and transparency in mind

Both speakers emphasize the importance of privacy and data protection in AI governance, arguing that these principles should be fundamental in AI development and regulation.

Similar Viewpoints

All three speakers advocate for a balanced approach to AI governance that considers both the potential benefits and risks of AI implementation, suggesting that lawmakers should focus on understanding and addressing specific use cases and risks rather than creating blanket regulations.

Ivana Bartoletti

Basma Ammari

Fuad Siddiqui

Parliamentarians need to define risks and protections for AI in their countries

Risk-based and principles-based regulation is preferable to strict AI-specific laws

AI is being applied to improve productivity in sectors like agriculture and energy

Unexpected Consensus

Need for collaboration between private sector and government in AI governance

Ivana Bartoletti

Basma Ammari

Fuad Siddiqui

Audience

Parliamentarians need to define risks and protections for AI in their countries

Private sector and government partnerships are needed to address AI’s workforce impacts

AI is being applied to improve productivity in sectors like agriculture and energy

There’s a need for AI research centers to support parliamentarians

Despite representing different sectors (academia, private sector, and government), all speakers and audience members agreed on the need for collaboration between the private sector and government in AI governance. This consensus is unexpected given the often conflicting interests of these groups.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The main areas of agreement include the relevance of existing laws to AI governance, the importance of privacy and data protection, the need for a balanced and risk-based approach to regulation, and the necessity of collaboration between the private sector and government.

Consensus level

There is a moderate to high level of consensus among the speakers on fundamental principles of AI governance. This consensus suggests a potential for productive collaboration in developing AI governance frameworks that balance innovation with responsible development and use. However, there are still areas of debate, particularly around the specifics of how to implement these principles in practice.

Different Viewpoints

Approach to AI regulation

Ivana Bartoletti

Basma Ammari

Existing laws already apply to AI, new specific AI laws may not be needed

Risk-based and principles-based regulation is preferable to strict AI-specific laws

While both speakers advocate for caution in creating new AI-specific laws, Ivana emphasizes leveraging existing laws, while Basma promotes a risk-based and principles-based approach to regulation.

Unexpected Differences

Role of private sector in AI governance

Ivana Bartoletti

Basma Ammari

Parliamentarians need to define risks and protections for AI in their countries

Open source AI models help improve fairness and transparency

While both speakers acknowledge the importance of governance, there’s an unexpected difference in their emphasis on who should lead this effort. Ivana strongly emphasizes the role of parliamentarians, while Basma highlights the benefits of private sector initiatives like open-source AI models.

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement revolve around the approach to AI regulation, the balance between leveraging existing laws and creating new frameworks, and the roles of government and private sector in AI governance.

difference_level

The level of disagreement is moderate. While there are differences in approach and emphasis, all speakers agree on the need for responsible AI development and governance. These differences reflect the complexity of AI governance and highlight the need for collaboration between government, industry, and civil society to develop effective AI policies.

Partial Agreements

Both speakers agree on the importance of privacy and data protection in AI governance, but they differ in their approach. Ivana emphasizes leveraging existing privacy laws, while Basma focuses on incorporating these principles into the design of AI systems from the start.

Ivana Bartoletti

Basma Ammari

Privacy and data protection laws are important for governing AI

AI systems should be designed with privacy, safety, fairness and transparency in mind

Similar Viewpoints

All three speakers advocate for a balanced approach to AI governance that considers both the potential benefits and risks of AI implementation, suggesting that lawmakers should focus on understanding and addressing specific use cases and risks rather than creating blanket regulations.

Ivana Bartoletti

Basma Ammari

Fuad Siddiqui

Parliamentarians need to define risks and protections for AI in their countries

Risk-based and principles-based regulation is preferable to strict AI-specific laws

AI is being applied to improve productivity in sectors like agriculture and energy

Key Takeaways

Existing laws and regulations already apply to AI in many areas, so entirely new AI-specific laws may not be necessary

Privacy and data protection laws are particularly important for governing AI systems

A risk-based and principles-based approach to AI regulation is preferable to strict, inflexible AI-specific laws

AI development should incorporate privacy, safety, fairness and transparency by design

Parliamentarians need to define the specific risks and protections they want for AI in their countries

Public-private partnerships and collaboration are important for effective AI governance and addressing workforce impacts

Resolutions and Action Items

Parliamentarians should focus on understanding AI to govern it effectively

Governments should consider digitizing national archives (with privacy protections) to improve AI training data

More research is needed on how to monitor and validate AI systems long-term

Unresolved Issues

How to effectively regulate AI algorithms without stifling innovation

How to address cross-border issues in AI governance

The appropriate balance between framework/principles-based approaches versus strict AI laws

How to ensure AI systems remain fair and unbiased over time

Suggested Compromises

Using existing laws and regulations where possible, while updating them to address AI-specific concerns

Adopting a risk-based approach that regulates high-risk AI applications more strictly

Balancing innovation and regulation through ‘sandbox’ approaches and public-private collaboration

Privacy regulation, consumer regulation, discrimination-related regulation, liability, all these things already apply to AI. To parliamentarians, I wanted to say, don’t think that AI does not exist in isolation. It does not. Already a lot of things, a lot of existing legislation that we have across different countries, they apply to artificial intelligence.

speaker

Ivana Bartoletti

reason

This comment challenges the assumption that entirely new regulations are needed for AI, pointing out that many existing laws already apply. It encourages a more nuanced approach to AI governance.

impact

This shifted the discussion from focusing solely on new AI-specific regulations to considering how existing laws can be applied or adapted. It prompted further discussion on privacy laws and data protection in relation to AI.

META has adopted an open source methodology with its large language model. What that means is that these large language models are made available for practically everyone to use, to build on. And why we do that, why Meta decided to do that is not completely altruistic. It’s really to, one, improve access to AI, but also to make these models better.

speaker

Basma Ammari

reason

This comment provides insight into the strategy of a major tech company regarding AI development, highlighting the benefits of open-source approaches in improving AI models.

impact

It introduced the concept of collaborative AI development and its potential benefits, leading to further discussion on fairness, transparency, and representation in AI models.

As you have built electricity networks, you have an electricity grid, you would be building an intelligence grid. That intelligence grid, in my opinion, comprises of three Cs. One is what I call the basic connectivity layer. How do you move data around? So, you have built 5G networks, and you’re getting into 6G networks, and you have space technologies, satellites and all. So, movement of the data in a secure way, in a high-performance way, in a low-latency way will be critical. Then you have a computing layer where you would have computing infrastructure, where you would be housing your data and federating data. Then you have a control layer around software systems and AI systems that are embedded within that.

speaker

Fuad Siddiqui

reason

This comment provides a comprehensive framework for understanding the infrastructure needed for AI, comparing it to existing utilities like electricity grids. It helps contextualize AI within a broader technological ecosystem.

impact

This analogy helped frame the discussion in terms of large-scale infrastructure development, leading to considerations of national strategies and the role of both public and private sectors in building AI capabilities.

Whoever tells you that there is a dichotomy between privacy and AI, please do not believe them. Do not. You can ask companies to say, well, enforce privacy.

speaker

Ivana Bartoletti

reason

This comment directly challenges a common narrative that privacy must be sacrificed for AI advancement, asserting that both can coexist.

impact

It reframed the discussion around privacy and AI, encouraging participants to think about how to enforce privacy within AI development rather than seeing them as mutually exclusive.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by moving it from a focus on creating entirely new AI-specific regulations to a more nuanced approach considering existing laws, open collaboration, infrastructure development, and the compatibility of privacy with AI advancement. The discussion evolved to consider AI governance as a complex, multifaceted issue involving various stakeholders and requiring a balance between innovation and regulation. The comments encouraged parliamentarians to think more broadly about their role in shaping AI development and its societal impacts, while also highlighting the importance of collaboration between the public and private sectors.

How to balance between having a comprehensive AI Act versus more flexible frameworks or regulations?

speaker

Maha Abdel Nasser and Salih

explanation

This is important to determine the most effective regulatory approach for AI that can keep pace with rapid technological changes while providing adequate oversight.

How can we ensure AI algorithms support privacy and avoid discrimination?

speaker

Salih

explanation

This is crucial for developing ethical AI systems that protect individual rights and promote fairness.

How can parliaments leverage AI to monitor the implementation and impact of laws?

speaker

Unnamed audience member

explanation

This could enhance the effectiveness of legislative oversight and policy evaluation.

How can the private sector be involved in AI development in a way that benefits society as a whole, considering impacts on job markets and education?

speaker

Silvia Dinica

explanation

This is important for ensuring AI development aligns with broader societal interests and mitigates potential negative impacts.

What experiences or lessons learned are there in implementing AI legislation?

speaker

Ailyn Febles

explanation

This could provide valuable insights for countries developing their own AI regulatory frameworks.

How can AI be used to support legislators in decision-making and law-making processes?

speaker

Ailyn Febles

explanation

This could potentially improve the efficiency and effectiveness of legislative processes.

Is there a direction to establish parliamentary research centers focused on digital innovation and AI in cooperation with the private sector?

speaker

Mubarak Janahi

explanation

This could help bridge the knowledge gap between lawmakers and rapidly evolving AI technologies.

Summary

This panel discussion focused on collaborative approaches to address online harms, bringing together perspectives from law enforcement, government, civil society, and technology sectors. Participants emphasized the importance of a multi-stakeholder approach in tackling online threats, particularly those affecting vulnerable groups like children and women. The FBI representative highlighted international cooperation efforts in combating child exploitation, while the Australian ambassador discussed legislative measures to hold social media platforms accountable for user safety.

Parliamentarians from Saudi Arabia and Bahrain stressed the need for balanced policies that protect citizens while fostering innovation. They emphasized the importance of education and awareness in navigating the digital landscape. The Oversight Board representative explained their role in holding Meta accountable for content moderation decisions, emphasizing the importance of diverse perspectives in addressing global issues.

Key challenges discussed included defining online harm across different cultural contexts, balancing freedom of expression with safety concerns, and addressing the digital divide, particularly for women and developing nations. Participants also touched on the potential impacts of artificial intelligence on employment and the need for ongoing adaptation of laws to keep pace with technological advancements.

The discussion underscored the complexity of internet governance, highlighting the need for collaboration between governments, tech companies, civil society, and international bodies. Participants agreed on the importance of preserving the open nature of the internet while implementing measures to protect users and promote digital literacy. The session concluded with a call for digital solidarity to ensure balanced global development and respect for human rights in the online space.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– The importance of a multi-stakeholder, collaborative approach to addressing online harms

– The need for precise legislation and oversight to regulate online spaces while protecting rights

– Challenges in defining and addressing online harms across different cultural contexts

– The role of education and digital literacy in creating a safer online environment

– Balancing innovation and economic development with online safety and security

Overall purpose:

The purpose of this discussion was to explore collaborative approaches to addressing online harms from various stakeholder perspectives, including government, parliament, law enforcement, civil society, and the private sector. Participants aimed to share insights on effective strategies and challenges in regulating the online space.

Tone:

The overall tone was constructive and solution-oriented. Speakers approached the topic with a sense of urgency regarding the need to address online harms, while also acknowledging the complexity of the issues. There was a spirit of collaboration, with participants emphasizing the importance of working together across sectors and borders. The tone became more passionate when discussing specific issues like protecting children online or addressing the digital divide, but remained respectful throughout.

Speakers

– David Alamos – Chief of the Parliamentary Engagement Office of the United Nations Office of Counterterrorism

– Jordan Hadfield – Legal Attache of the Federal Bureau of Investigation

– Rajnesh Singh – Chief Executive Officer of the APNIC Foundation

– Brendan Dowling – Australian Ambassador for Cyber Affairs and Critical Technology

– Nighat Dad – Member of the Oversight Board

– Auhoud Al-Shehail – Member of Parliament from the Saudi Shura Council

– Jehad Abdulla Al Fadhel – Second Deputy Speaker of the Shura Council of Bahrain

Additional speakers:

– Soraya – Audience member

– Tziakoub Yusuf – Member of the Council of Representatives of the Kingdom of Bahrain

– Unnamed speaker – President of the Forum of Parliamentary Women of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Mediterranean

– Unnamed speaker – Arab man in the audience

– Agustina – Works at the Chamber of Deputies in Argentina

– Abdulrahman Harbi – Saudi scholar

– Baraa Julien – Member of the National Assembly of Cameroon

– Shweba Falabe Salisu – Senator from Nigeria, Chairman Senate Committee on ICT and Cyber Security

– Abdulhaq Ibrahimi – Member of the Algerian National Council

– Unnamed speaker – President of the Parliament of Guinea

Expanded Summary of Panel Discussion on Collaborative Approaches to Address Online Harms

Introduction:

This panel discussion brought together representatives from law enforcement, government, civil society, and the technology sector to explore collaborative approaches to addressing online harms. The conversation highlighted the complex nature of internet governance and the need for multi-stakeholder engagement in developing effective strategies to combat online threats whilst preserving the benefits of digital technologies.

Key Themes and Discussion Points:

1. Multi-stakeholder Approaches to Addressing Online Harms

The panel unanimously agreed on the importance of collaboration between various stakeholders in addressing online harms. Jordan Hadfield from the FBI emphasised the value of international cooperation, citing task forces like the Violent Crimes Against Children International Task Force and Interpol specialist groups focused on combating child exploitation. He also highlighted the FBI’s “Threat to Life” categorization for prioritizing online threats. Brendan Dowling, the Australian Ambassador for Cyber Affairs, highlighted how government legislation in Australia has been driven by community concerns, leading to greater accountability for social media platforms. He noted that the failure of technology companies to adequately protect users has necessitated government intervention.

Rajnesh Singh of the APNIC Foundation stressed the need for an open, interoperable internet infrastructure, cautioning against over-regulation that could impact core internet functionality. Nighat Dad, representing the Oversight Board, underscored the importance of diverse oversight bodies for tech platforms to ensure culturally sensitive content moderation. She detailed the Oversight Board’s role and composition, emphasizing its independence and diverse membership.

Parliamentarians Auhoud Al-Shehail from Saudi Arabia and Jehad Abdulla Al Fadhel from Bahrain emphasised the need for balanced legislation that protects citizens while fostering innovation. They advocated for partnerships between parliament, government, the private sector, and civil society to develop comprehensive approaches to online safety.

2. Protecting Vulnerable Groups Online

A significant focus of the discussion was on protecting vulnerable groups, particularly children and women, from online harms. Jordan Hadfield detailed the FBI’s efforts in addressing child exploitation through international task forces. Brendan Dowling shared Australia’s initiative to ban social media accounts for under 16-year-olds, with a 12-month development period for implementation.

Rajnesh Singh highlighted programmes run by the APNIC Foundation to empower women in tech in Southeast Asia, addressing the gender gap in internet access and use. He also emphasized the importance of creating safe spaces for women and gender-diverse people online. Nighat Dad emphasised the importance of considering cultural context in content moderation, citing the Oversight Board’s role in advising META on context-specific issues, such as the use of the Arabic word “Shaheed” in different contexts.

Auhoud Al-Shehail stressed the importance of education and awareness initiatives to equip users with the skills to navigate the digital landscape safely. Jehad Abdulla Al Fadhel called for intensifying penalties for harmful uses of the dark web to protect vulnerable groups. An audience member highlighted Saudi Arabia’s initiatives on child protection and women empowerment in the digital space.

3. Balancing Innovation, Rights, and Regulation

The discussion highlighted the challenge of balancing technological innovation with user protection and human rights. Jordan Hadfield noted the need for evolving laws to address new online threats, while Brendan Dowling advocated for “safety by design” principles in new technologies to preemptively address potential harms.

Rajnesh Singh emphasised the importance of supporting local digital ecosystems, encouraging citizens to be creators, not just consumers of digital content. Nighat Dad stressed the use of human rights frameworks in oversight mechanisms for tech companies.

Auhoud Al-Shehail highlighted the importance of ongoing evaluation of policies to keep pace with rapidly evolving technology. Jehad Abdulla Al Fadhel proposed an international parliamentary network for internet governance to facilitate global cooperation on these issues.

4. Digital Divide and Access

Several audience members, particularly African representatives, raised concerns about the digital divide between developed and developing countries. The President of the Parliament of Guinea emphasized the need for digital solidarity to ensure balanced global development and respect for human rights in the online space. The gender gap in internet access was highlighted as a particular concern, with speakers emphasising the need for targeted programmes to increase women’s participation in the digital economy.

Rajnesh Singh’s comments on supporting local digital ecosystems resonated with these concerns, emphasising the importance of nurturing local innovation and creation, rather than just consumption of foreign digital products.

5. Emerging Challenges and Unresolved Issues

The discussion identified several unresolved issues and emerging challenges in addressing online harms:

– Defining online harm across different cultural contexts, as highlighted by Auhoud Al-Shehail

– Balancing freedom of expression with protection from online harms

– Addressing potential job losses due to AI and automation, raised by Baraa Julien from Cameroon

– Ensuring consistent application of content moderation across different cultural contexts

– Developing a unified approach to internet governance across different countries

– Closing the digital divide between developed and developing countries

Thought-Provoking Comments and Future Directions:

Several comments sparked deeper reflection on the complexities of addressing online harms:

Auhoud Al-Shehail’s observation about the evolving nature of online harms highlighted the need for flexible and adaptable regulatory approaches. Brendan Dowling’s emphasis on “safety by design” principles underscored the importance of proactive measures in technology development.

Rajnesh Singh’s distinction between internet infrastructure and applications/services prompted a more nuanced discussion about the targets of regulation and potential unintended consequences of poorly targeted policies.

Nighat Dad’s example of the Oversight Board’s deliberations on culturally sensitive terms illustrated the challenges of content moderation across different cultural contexts and the importance of diverse perspectives in decision-making processes.

The presence of high-level participants, including the Speaker of the Parliament of Kenya, underscored the global importance of addressing online harms and the need for international cooperation.

Conclusion:

The panel discussion underscored the complexity of addressing online harms and the need for collaborative, multi-stakeholder approaches. While there was broad consensus on the importance of protecting vulnerable groups and balancing innovation with regulation, significant challenges remain in implementing effective strategies across diverse cultural and legal contexts. The conversation highlighted the ongoing need for dialogue, research, and adaptive policymaking to ensure a safe, inclusive, and innovative digital future for all, with a particular emphasis on bridging the digital divide and fostering digital solidarity on a global scale.

David Alamos: Good morning, excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, and distinguished participants. We resume with the next session of today. It’s a pleasure for me to moderate this panel of experts. As you may know, the next session is going to be on collaborative approaches to address online harms. And just to let you know, my name is David Alamos, I’m the chief of the Parliamentary Engagement Office of the United Nations Office of Counterterrorism, that we settled three years ago to work exclusively and basically with the parliamentarians and with member of parliaments, national parliaments, and parliamentary assemblies, and it’s a double honour for me to be today here moderating this session. So we have been talking during these previous sessions yesterday and today about the importance of a multi-stakeholder approach in all these relevant matters. So I really think that we have now a session which absolutely exemplifies this kind of approach. We have representatives from the national parliaments, we have also from the executive branch, also from the civil society. So I think these different angles and perspectives are absolutely needed to be discussed at the same time to come to a common solution. So I will, in the sake of time, I will go directly to the questions to our distinguished speakers and I would be grateful if when you are taking the floor, please, if you can just briefly introduce yourself so that we are all familiar with your bio. So the first question I would like to address to Mr. Jordan Hadfield, the Legal Attaché of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and to Mr. Brendan Dowling, Australian Ambassador for Cyber Affairs and Critical Technology of Australia. So the first question is, please, this session focuses on collaborative approaches to address online harms. Mr. Hatfield and Mr. Dowling, what are the benefits of a multi-stakeholder approach to fight risks and harms in the online space? Please, if you could also provide concrete examples, please, you have the floor.

Jordan Hadfield: All right. Good morning. Thank you so much for the introduction. Thank you also to the IGF and for the Kingdom for hosting such a wonderful event here. My name is Jordan Hadfield. I am the Legal Attaché for the Federal Bureau of Investigation Department of Justice here at U.S. Embassy in Riyadh, and talking about multi-stakeholder approaches and collaborations, the Federal Bureau of Investigation handles both criminal and national security matters. So when we discuss national security matters in open forums, things become very complex and difficult to talk about things. So I’m going to shift to more of the criminal element right now, and specifically looking at child exploitation matters. I think that’s probably one of the easiest things for us to discuss in an open forum. But looking back just contextually, the Federal Bureau of Investigation categorizes a lot of the threats that we’re dealing with in the space as TTLs, or Threat to Lifes. Those Threat to Lifes might be an imminent threat, an imminent attack, violent extremism. It might also be a specific threat against a child or an adult due to a domestic dispute, also due to online harms. And so specifically looking at that criminal element and the crimes against children or child exploitation realm, looking at producers of child sexual abuse material across the board and discussing what does that sort of stakeholder approach look like. The FBI works in two kind of novel ways that are unique, but has plenty of international partners that we work alongside to kind of accomplish this goal. The first thing that we have is a Violent Crimes Against Children International Task Force. This task force is law enforcement led, but is open to law enforcement. It’s open to industry. It’s also open to prosecutors across the globe. So there’s over 70 nations that have been represented on this task force. The focus is that every single year, there’ll be a week-long operational meeting somewhere in the world, different place every single year to be able to discuss new operational concerns, new challenges in the realms of end-to-end encryption, also looking at online harm. The long-term goal in this is to develop better relationships amongst law enforcement prosecutors so that we can discuss sort of the latest and greatest complexities with the work that we do. Part of this development or part of this task force is that on an annual basis, there’s a month-long training for new additions to this task force. So you have prosecutors, you have law enforcement officers going through four weeks in the United States, seeing the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, getting time at NCMEC, getting time with other elements inside the United States, some of our regional teams as well, to better understand the challenges that we all face. face. It could be a small local regional sheriff’s department in a small rural community in the United States, or it could be something happening in the kingdom here, it could be something happening into a major city anywhere around the world, and the challenge could be the same because we cannot get access to something that law enforcement or prosecutors or justice departments have legal authority to access. So it’s an ongoing complexity. The second thing, and I’ll end on this, is that we participate in Interpol specialist groups for crimes against children in France every single year. This is a huge opportunity, week-long event to develop relationships with other law enforcement partners, other members of the industry, tech industry, electronic service providers. It’s tip-of-the-spear conversations and an open dialogue, but also an opportunity to have those sort of more sensitive conversations behind closed doors. So success in this realm for us right now in the way that we try to approach it has to look collaborative, and we try to do as much as we can to open our doors so that other folks and other nations can learn from our challenges as well. Thank you.

David Alamos: Thank you very much, Mr. Hadfield, for the vision on the experience of the FBI, and how are you proceeding with this multi-stakeholder approach also working together with others. So please now, Ambassador, Mr. Dowling, please, you have the floor.

Brendan Dowling: Thank you. I’m the Australian Ambassador for Cyber Affairs and Critical Technology, and it’s wonderful to be here with all of you today. Australia has been quite active in addressing online harms. We’ve been very active in passing legislation that drives greater accountability for social media platforms, for technology platforms to take more serious action to address online harms. That has all been driven by multi-stakeholder approach. We were the first country in the world to establish an e-safety commission. The driver for that was community concern about cyberbullying, about the harms that our children were being exposed to through issues around online grooming, around abuse of children online. So it was driven not by government imposing a top-down solution, but by a sense of concern by our community, by civil society, by children’s rights groups, by other advocates to say, we need government, we need our parliament to take more action to address the spread of online harm. So we’ve always come at this from a multi-stakeholder approach. We’ve always applied legislation to address online harms through a parliamentary review process subject to judicial review. We’ve always sought to design legislation in consultation with industry, but our parliament has been driven to act by that sense of concern from our community that we’ve seen this enormous proliferation of child abuse material online. We’ve seen terrorist groups seeking to radicalise our young people online. We’ve seen cyberbullying spread rife through our schools. So there has been a sense that parliaments and governments need to act to drive more accountability because, let’s face it, technology platforms will not do that by themselves. They’ve had 20 years of expectations of addressing online harms, which they have failed to take seriously. They’ve prioritised commercial interests over community safety and wellbeing. So there has been a strong push by the Australian people to say this is an area where governments need to act, where parliaments need to act. We need to do it in a sensible, considered way. We need to engage. a range of stakeholders. We need to engage industry, but it is an area where governments do need to act.

David Alamos: Thank you very much, Excellency. It’s very important, as you said, the collaboration between Parliament and Government. We need to be accountable and to respond together to these kind of threats that we are exposed to. Let me now move forward and pose a question to Mr. Singh, Chief Executive Officer of the APNIC Foundation. So, Mr. Singh, the APNIC Foundation advocates for a global, open, stable and secure internet. How can members of Parliament contribute to this vision? What collaborative approach would you recommend for Parliamentarians to take? Please.

Rajnesh Singh: Thank you. Thank you for the opportunity to the organizers, and it’s great to be here in Saudi Arabia as well. So, my organization, we invest in internet and digital development across 56 economies in the Asia-Pacific region. We come from technical roots, so that gives us a bit of credibility when it comes to the technical nature of the internet on what we talk about and why we talk about what we do. In terms of the question itself, I think we can all appreciate that the internet over the last 30, maybe close to 40 years now, has completely transformed humankind. You’ve seen the positive benefits of the internet across the world. One of the reasons that’s been the case is because the internet is open and it’s interoperable, which means you can build anything you want, and you can connect to the internet, and you can sell your services or your application or whatever it may be to anyone else in the world, theoretically, at least anyway. And so, And what that of course allows is creativity, it allows innovation, it allows all these technology companies and non-technology companies to do what they’re able to do with the internet. When I see a lot of people in this room right now busy on their phones, you are able to do that because the internet is there allowing you to do what you’re doing on your phone. That brings me to one of the concerns that I have when it comes to how parliamentarians and policy makers look at what the internet is. I think you also have to be very clear on what the internet is not. And what I mean by that is that the internet itself is the core infrastructure that makes all this happen. Applications and services, the things that people use on the internet, are a different thing. And I think too often we conflate the two. When regulation or policies are put in place, the implications of what that will do to the core internet infrastructure are not taken into account. So if there’s one message I would give to parliamentarians and policy makers, consider the implications of what you’re trying to regulate or not trying to regulate. Things like app, for example, AI is a big thing these days, right? But fundamentally AI is an application that works over the internet. There’s nothing more than that. If the internet infrastructure that exists around the world, the core global internet infrastructure doesn’t exist, none of that’s going to work. So when you do consider how you look at legislation or how you develop legislation, I think it’s very important to consider what exactly are you trying to legislate. Is it the apps or the platforms or what runs over the internet? Or are you also potentially impacting the internet itself? So I’ll stop there. Thank you.

David Alamos: Thank you very much, Mr. Singh, for your intervention and for highlighting the importance of being very precise with the development of the legislation that has to be furthermore implemented by everybody. So let me now move on. I would like to give now the floor. to Mrs. Nighat that she’s the member of the Oversight Board. And the question is, please, the Oversight Board plays an important role on a metasocial media platform. How do you collaborate with other stakeholder groups to guarantee a safer online space? Please, Johanna.

Nighat Dad: Oh, thank you so much. For folks, if you don’t know about the Oversight Board, it’s a very unique body. The first of its own experience that basically META tried doing it. And I’m very proud to say that we actually have become an institution over the last four years. We were established in 2020. And the idea was to have an independent body which can independently hold META accountable on their content moderation decisions. So users can actually appeal to us against the META’s decision on leaving up content or removing content. And what we do as a board is basically select the most relevant cases from around the world. Our main focus is basically centralizing human rights framework while we decide on cases and also on users’ right, like protecting users’ right by actively engaging with stakeholders through appeals and public comments. And so far we have received 10,000 comments on the cases that we have selected. We receive these comments, we process them, and then we deliberate on our cases. One of the examples just recently is the case that we decided is over the phrase on river to the sea, which was basically users around the world had this complaint that it was over-enforced on META platforms. And we looked into it and we received 2,000 comments just for that one particular case. I think the comment process and engaging with stakeholders around the world basically give us an opportunity to engage with diverse groups of people, but also with stakeholders in civil society that if they cannot reach out to the tech platforms themselves directly, they can reach out to this third body, which is independent and which has an authority of binding decisions over META. But I would also say that one of the very important features of our work is not only independence, but transparency as well. What we do, we actually share with the world. They can also hold us accountable that if you are the independent oversight body, how you are holding META accountable. And we do this through our reports, the performance on our decisions, and the implementation of how META is actually implementing on our decisions. I would also say that the body is also interesting in a way that the power concentration around tackling online harms is not only with the platform and it’s not only with the government. It should not be. There should be other stakeholders also who have a say and who can engage with the diverse groups like civil society. Thank you.

David Alamos: Thank you very much, Madhani, for your intervention. How important it is really to have all the visions from law enforcement, from civil society, government, an independent body that is able to monitor and to oversight the platforms and the work. So with that, we have received many comments on the importance of legislation, how important it is that the development of legislation should be accurate and should be precise, specifically, and count on the comments of those that are basically… facing some of the challenges in its implementation. It is for me an honor now to move ahead and to give the floor to members of the Parliament, to Her Excellency Uhud al-Sahayl, Member of Parliament from the Saudi Shura Council, and also to Her Excellency Madam Jihad Abdullah Al-Fahed, Second Deputy Speaker of the Shura Council of Bahrain. Excellencies, as members of Parliament, I would like to ask you, what are you confronted with when wanting to address online harms in the digital space, like, for example, during the legislative procedures, and also what support would you like to see from the private sector, the technical community, civil society, and the government on the work that you advance? Please, Excellency Madam Al-Sahayl, you have the floor.

Auhoud Al-Shehail: Good afternoon. It is an honor and privilege to be participating today in this session. It is such an important session, and I would like to welcome you to Riyadh. The rapid evolution of technology brings with it a lot of benefits, but also brings different forms of what does harm mean. And the starting point, I do believe, as a Parliament member is, what does online harm mean? Because we keep talking about it, but we really don’t know, because as technology develops, those forms and those harms keep developing. So our understanding of harm keeps changing from criminal to ethical, from social, different backgrounds, they are affected. So going back to 2007, when the Shura Council first proposed a law that was concentrated on online crimes, the Anti-Cybercrime Law, it was approved, but at that time it focused more on illegal act. And the whole purpose of it was providing and creating a secure, protected society. As time developed and technology and more interaction happened, more harm started to come on the surface, local and international. So, this brings us to that different stakeholders have different perspectives and understanding of what constitutes harm. It is such a simple question, but yet the consequences of it are very complex. So, if we can share a common understanding, it will help us in creating goals that we can actually achieve that are practical and effective. Yesterday, they were talking about the goals that we didn’t even reach 20% of the goals that we hope to reach. The second challenge we are always faced with is balancing rights. There is a debate about it, but as a member of the parliament, I do believe that we have a role to ensure that all executive institutions do understand and are aligned in making the digital space a safer space that does respect human digital rights. So, when looking at privacy, sometimes it does collide with security. And balancing those rights, sometimes the consequences do interfere with each other. And looking at the digital world, it’s related in all aspects of our life. The third challenge that we are faced with is innovation. Innovation not from a technological point of view, but innovation in communicating with different stakeholders, also finding innovative solutions. And also education. Education has proved in many fields and in all fields of our life that it is a successful tool. So, doing research and also having educational campaigns that does equip our civilians and citizens with tools that they can have and navigate this digital world to make it a safer place. I do believe that having a better communication, that’s why I said in the beginning, I am so honored to be participating in this session. Because it is a very important topic that affects all sectors. of society, from politicians to citizens to children, different harm, kinds of harm also, from legal to psychological. So thank you for the time. I think I’m like on time. I give the mic back to you.

David Alamos: Thank you very much, Excellency. Of course, you are on time. And thank you very much for the intervention. Thank you very much for also addressing the issue of the importance of education. I think it’s a critical issue on this topic, in many topics, but especially in this topic, which is really like, without education, we will be absolutely exposed to all the threats online. So let me now move ahead and give the floor to Her Excellency, Madam Jahat Abdullah. After her, please, you have the floor.

Jehad Abdulla Al Fadhel: Shukran jazeelan, I’ll speak in Arabic, if you don’t mind. Thank you so much for this invitation, this kind invitation to attend this forum, which is very important in the capital of the Arabs, Riyadh. Thank you so much for this invitation. My name is Jahad Al-Fadl, I’m the second deputy for the Council of Shura in the Kingdom of Shura, the head of the parliamentarian leaders in Africa, Africa and the Arab world, and deputy of the parliamentarian net or internet in Africa and the Arab world. So for my, for the challenges that we are trying to face to deal with harm through the legislative work, I’d like to say that there are level, national level, the main place for launching any kind of initiative, legal or whatever it is, or parliamentarian initiative. to ask a parliamentarian is try to diagnose, in fact, the harm so that to stop any kind of challenges or difficulties, try to mitigate it. So the most important thing that we are facing as members in the legislatory body that these legislations that has to do with any activity on the internet will be going hand-in-hand with the other developments that are taking place at the same time. So this makes us obligated to have a delegation, a legislative delegation, where you want to delegate the people who are executing to actually issue ministerial decisions, so that there will be flexibility in issuing these decisions. If you want to compare it also with any kind of amendment in the laws, this takes a full properly cycle that could take a long time maybe. So also besides that, we notice that in the last and the previous recent days, that there was a lot of fraudulent action on the internet. So that’s why we try to improve the security for the individuals and different entities in the country. In the Kingdom of Bahrain, the legislative authority has issued a lot of legislations that organizes different things or actions that take place like, you know, electronic signature. So the Shura Council in Bahrain also has submitted a proposal about organizing the AI. now they are revising it in different councils in the parliament according to the legal ways. It considers the Bahraini Shura is the first parliament in the Arabic world and one of the first in the world that agrees to this type of initiatives, legislative initiatives that has to do with AIR. For the second part of it, that’s about usage, I think the biggest support from the government and other entities is to commit an implementing of laws, especially these laws that has to do with different fragile groups like children, so that to protect them against fraudulent acts and also besides that, for the support that we are expecting from technological companies is that they will do their part in fighting actually threats that is coming from country to country, this movement from country to country and also to have more cooperation in implementing the laws in their platforms and respecting different security standards. It’s very important for these guys to give trainings to parliamentarians so that they will understand things much better, especially technical issues and give them also different analytics so that this will help the parliament in taking decisions, the right decisions. at the right time. So we expect from the civil society and the media and the different social media platforms is that they need to take their roles in having a big role in educating people and teaching them. Thank you very much.

David Alamos: of the Kingdom of Bahrain but you also have another very important role which is as a member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Mediterranean as Parliamentary Assembly and the work that the Parliamentary Assemblies are advancing this topic is very important especially Parliamentary Assembly of the Mediterranean has gone through a very interesting and very productive actions with regard to this specific topic including artificial intelligence of course and I would like to ask you Excellency how does the Parliamentary Assembly of the Mediterranean contribute to and take action in collaborative efforts to tackle online harms? Please.

Jehad Abdulla Al Fadhel: Of course, the Mediterranean White Parliament, through cooperation with various international organizations, governments and parliaments, is working to create a unified framework that addresses issues related to artificial intelligence, information technology and communications, while ensuring the preservation of tools to achieve social, economic and innovative development. The Mediterranean White Parliament, with the support of its Center for International Studies, is also working closely with member parliaments and international organizations, as a partner in drafting marine policies and strategies to prevent and mitigate internet damage. The Mediterranean White Parliament has also established a permanent international parliamentary center for artificial intelligence, information technology and communications. This center publishes daily and weekly articles to provide its members and partner organizations with innovative directions and talks about advanced developments in the field of artificial intelligence, information technology and communications.

David Alamos: Thank you very much, Excellency. Indeed, let me also just highlight that we are having, as the Office of Parliamentary Engagement of UNOCT, a fantastic alliance with the Parliamentary Assembly of the Mediterranean. Indeed, in December this year, let me share with you that the Parliamentary Assembly of the Mediterranean became the Presidency and the Chair of the Coordination Mechanism of Parliamentary Assemblies that we are having on issues related to the prevention and countering terrorism. And this specific topic is one of the priorities that has been identified by the 17th Parliamentary Assembly that are a member of participating in the mechanism. We have the honor to have Pan with us as the Chair, with an excellent experience in this topic. So let me open the floor to all the distinguished participants. Please, if you have questions, please just introduce yourself very briefly, please, and then pose the question. So I think we have three questions in this part of the room. Thank you.

Audience: As-salamu alaykum. Soraya speaking in Arabic, if you don’t mind. Today, due to the digital transformation, technology has become open to everyone. And this, of course, encourages innovation, competition, productivity, and creativity. And it reduces privacy at the same time. I mean, we are talking about privacy. There is a threat. And the disappearance of some jobs. I mean, some jobs in many countries will disappear. And it reduces the children who love technology and electronic devices. With these modern devices, what are the legislatures to protect the community, and children in particular? And we are talking about today, we are talking about AI. Thank you so much. In this era of AI. Thank you.

David Alamos: The next question is from

Audience: My name is Tziakoub Yusuf. This is the Council of Representatives of the Kingdom of Bahrain. In light of UNESCO orientation to literacy by adopting education strategy in early childhood, and providing the necessary support and training of the old people. Today, the international gathering suffers from digital literacy. It is considered specifically a kind of damage on humanity. The question is, how can the preliminary community address this type of damage and achieve the balance between innovation and the risk of digital space? Thank you.

David Alamos: Maybe we will take some of the questions and then I can give the floor to the distinguished experts. Please.

Audience: Presidente du Forum des Femmes du Parlementaire de l’APM. C’est un honneur pour moi de m’adresser à vous aujourd’hui, comme Présidente du Forum des Femmes du Parlementaire de l’Assemblée parlementaire de Méditerranée, sur la question des opportunités et des défis pour les femmes liées au développement du domaine numérique. Savez-vous que sur les 2,7 milliards de personnes qui n’ont pas accès à Internet, la majorité sont les femmes et les filles? Les hommes ont 21% plus de chances d’être en ligne que les femmes, un chiffre qui attend 52% dans les pays le moins développés. Ces inégalités foires grandes soulignent l’urgence de combler le fossé numérique entre les genres. Alors que nous sommes avant-garde d’une révolution technologique, il est impératif de veiller à ce que personne ne soit laissé derrière, en particulier les femmes qui continuent de se hériter à des obstacles systémiques, y compris dans l’ère numérique. En tant que législateurs et décideurs publics, nous devons relever ces défis. Si je pense aux femmes dans les contextes ruraux, dont on s’est beaucoup occupé de l’APM, l’expansion de l’infrastructure numérique et la subvention de l’accès à Internet sont des étapes cruciales. Nous devons également demander des comptes aux entreprises technologiques pour parvenir à créer des environnements en lignes plus sûres où les femmes puissent interagir virtuellement sans comptes. Encourager davantage les filles et les jeunes femmes à rejoindre le secteur des technologies pourrait accélérer le développement de technologies sensibles aux genres. Cela pourrait également ouvrir de nouvelles perspectives de carrière. for women in the fields of technology, information and communication, and beyond. This imbalance and abuse does not only harm women, but also weakens democratic systems and socio-economic growth. The PM recognized the reality of this threat and took decisive measures to address it. Through its Forum of Parliamentary Women, the PM works relentlessly to fight against abuse, online abuse based on gender, and pleads in favor of stronger guarantees to protect women in the digital space. The future of Internet governance is not just a question of innovation, it is a question of representation, equity and automation. Let us collaborate for an inclusive digital future so that every woman, whether in a metropolis or an isolated village, can thrive without fear. This theme represents a priority for the Women’s Forum activities for 2025-2026, and I invite you to contribute to the work of the PM. For the next 2025-2026, the President is Maryam Bin Tunaïa of the United Arab Emirates. Thank you very much, and I would like to hear your comments on the role of women in artificial intelligence. Thank you very much. speaker. As an Arab man, I’m very proud that the two representatives of Parliaments from this region are women. We have come a long way. It’s a pleasure to see you sitting and speaking to us. Now, coming to the hard part, because my question is also to you and to other people in the panel, which is how can you guarantee that you put legislations to fight harm? I’m not talking about crime, but to fight harm with a good definition, as Your Excellency has said, without curtailing freedom of exhibition, without curtailing the rights of people to express themselves, without a definition of harm that not only governments can decide on, but also other stakeholders. How can you guarantee that this definition is actually participated in by, as Your Excellency said as well, civilians and citizens, by everybody? Because this is the fear of the civil society, that anti-cybercrime laws, that cybercrime treaty that’s being internationally negotiated, work by the FBI and others, would actually curtail the rights of people to express themselves. Thank you.

David Alamos: Thank you very much. Please.

Audience: Thank you for all the panellists for the very nice talks about harms. My question is a little bit technically for Mr. Jordan, maybe Hadfield or Mr. Dowling or Singh, or anybody can answer please. Agencies and governments around the world are working hard to ensure safety and security of people and agencies. But on the other side, you know, we have the bad guys. Really, they are using also AI to harms, you know. We know the big companies are using AI to protect cyber security and others. So, and they are working the dark side. Nobody almost know what they are doing there. The question is how will the harms will be even, I think it will be even worse. and bigger, like Deepfake and other IT apps. In the future, I think we will not be able to distinguish between reality and the real things and not real things. So I wonder how to fight such very important and difficult crimes, maybe some more. So it’s really, I think, a tough task. Thank you very much.

David Alamos: Thank you very much. I think we have one more question here. And then we move to the other. We also have, OK, sorry.

Audience: Thank you very much, all panelists. I am Abdel Wahabi Aqoubi, a member of the Algerian Parliament of Algerians living abroad. And I am an AI advisor in the Mediterranean Parliament. In fact, my colleagues and brothers in Bahrain excited me to speak in Arabic. And hopefully, my speech will be in English. Dr. Jihad spoke about legislation in the field of AI. In fact, we live in a reality where challenges and future horizons require great flexibility in the field of information technology, where there are new innovations every day. And in Algeria, I personally submitted a legislation to regulate the use of AI, which is the study guide in the legal committee. And I think we will vote on the two laws at the same time. We still need to coordinate within the framework of this parliamentary coordination between the different legislations. After the European Act legislation, you know that in the United States, there is an open field. and towards the lack of regulation and the abandonment of open innovation. We also have a challenge in China. There are some uncoordinated legislations, so the challenge remains how to coordinate these legislations, of course, while maintaining the flexibility that this sector requires. Thank you very much.

David Alamos: Thank you very much, Excellency.

Audience: Hi. Thank you. My name is Agustina. I’m from Argentina and I work at the Chamber of Deputies. I will be asking my question in Spanish. I would like to consult first with the Oversight Board related to why they need an Oversight Board if there is already the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the laws in each country. How do they balance that? Because you shouldn’t need a body to say what is right and what is wrong because the laws already exist in each country and they are local. That’s one thing. And on the other hand, in relation to Australia, to the Member of Parliament of Australia, I would like to know, in relation to the prohibition that was made to minors under 16 years of age to use social media platforms, what kind of approach or interaction did they have with young people considering that young people have the right to access social media? What kind of conversation did they have with young people to protect their rights? Thank you.

David Alamos: Thank you very much. I think we have one here. If you can give the microphone also there, please.

Audience: Really, I just want to comment on the same subject. I mean, we are on the internet. We work on borderless countries. In the old days, we used to protect our country, as the lady from Argentina said, we used to protect our society through the borders. We managed that. Today, everything is done across borders. So the question is, what is the role of the companies in protecting each society? And how would they know the values of each society to protect and the value of the other society, which we assume are wrong, while the other societies are not wrong? So really, there should be a forum or standard or an organisation or a body to help each country with those companies to protect its community from what we believe is an ill-information to our community, which is not an ill-information for the other community. It is a difficult situation, but I think each one of us here as parliamentarians, we have a responsibility to protecting our community. And maybe the companies, the representatives of the companies here could really answer that question, how we can work with them to protect our society and community.

David Alamos: Thank you very much. Please.

Audience: Thank you so much. I do have a comment, but my Arabic language encourages me to address it in Arabic. So please, I will address it in Arabic. My name is Abdulrahman Harbi, I am a Saudi scholar. I would like to thank all the speakers. The discussion was very, very excellent and useful for us. I have a comment that I would like to make. The Saudi Arabian government recently launched two initiatives to protect the child in the field of child protection and to empower women in the field of child protection. And the last announcement was in October last year, and many international countries joined it. I encourage my colleagues here, whether parliamentarians or experts, to join those two initiatives. And those two initiatives bear the name of the Saudi Crown Prince, Prince Mohammed bin Salman. And we are all proud of those two initiatives. And it could be, as the speakers mentioned, that the child and the woman could be weaker in the field of child protection. The second announcement and the second announcement is also from the Saudi Arabian Kingdom. Some colleagues have touched upon the issue of combating terrorism and the use of online and other means. We also have an international initiative through the Center for Equalization, the Center for Equalization, to combat terrorism and to remove all harmful substances that are related to terrorism on all social media platforms. Thank you all.

David Alamos: Thank you very much. I think we have another question there.

Audience: Thank you very much. I am Baraa Julien from Cameroon. I am a member of the National Assembly. First of all, I would like to thank the IGF for this important organization that brings together the government and parliamentarians to talk about the IAEA. It is a very good thing. We know that there is a very rapid evolution of technology, but we still have fears. This fear is unemployment in general. Today, we will have fewer and fewer truck drivers. We will have fewer and fewer people doing interviews and so on, because everything will be given to the IAEA. Let’s think about unemployment in the future. That’s my question.

David Alamos: Thank you very much. Please, yeah.

Audience: Thank you. I am Senator Shweba Falabe Salisu. I’m from Nigeria and the Sherman Senate Committee on High Seat and Cyber Security. Thank you for the very insightful perspective you have shared. I have two questions, particularly for the Oversight Organization. Apart from the issue of content moderation, which is a problem globally, two things are specific to Africa that are concerning. First, about the content moderation itself. What you consider to be less harmful in the Western world, sometimes such publication is harmful in Africa. And therefore, what will pass the test of harmlessness in Europe or America may not pass the test of harmlessness when it comes to Africa. So that’s one concern we’d like you to address. The second concern is also about transparency of the algorithm. Again, we do believe sometimes that some of the big technology companies, they do not operate with the same standard they operate in their home countries when they come to Africa. So how do you hold them accountable? And we also want to be sure that your oversight function as well takes cognizance of the nuances of the values of the culture of the requirements that are specific to African environment. Thank you.

David Alamos: Thank you very much. I think we have one more question.

Audience: In the name of God, and peace and blessings be upon the Messenger of God. I am Abdulhaq Ibrahimi, a member of the Algerian National Council, a member of the legal committee, and a member of the Algerian National Council’s Free Programming Group. First of all, I would like to thank the Saudis for organizing this demonstration, as well as the IGF organizers, for the wonderful and coordinated organization. This has been going on for the past three days until now. I would also like to thank my colleagues and friends from the parliament who are present now, for using the parliamentary diplomacy to encourage developed countries and international organizations to upgrade the internet in our Arab and African countries. Because we see the difficulty in accessing the internet, and the lack of sufficient coverage for the citizens of these countries. Therefore, the use of parliamentary diplomacy in this field is very good. We, as members of the Arab and African parliaments, have passed laws to protect the internet users, as parties or individuals, in order to protect them from, as you all know, cyber-attacks that occur on websites, and that we can use to protect the data and personal data of the users. Also, the parliaments have a big role in legislating, and they must pass laws. As my colleague in the National People’s Assembly said, we in Algeria have proposed laws in the legislative committee for this purpose. May peace be upon you.

David Alamos: Thank you very much. I don’t know if we have any other questions. Yes, I think there is one more. And then I will give the floor to the next speaker.

Audience: I would like to address the question of the Honourable Cameroon, who has raised concerns about the loss of jobs and the fact of artificial intelligence. In addition to this concern, there is also, as far as Africa is concerned, the poverty that marks a fracture between the other states, that is, Europe and us in Africa. So how to address this question so that we can still juggle the fracture between the South and the North? Thank you.

David Alamos: Thank you very much. If I may, then, I would like to give back the floor to the distinguished speakers, so that we have maybe a couple of minutes each of you, please, to respond to the question that you have been addressed with. So I would like to start with Her Excellency Bohute Al-Sheikhail, Member of the Parliament from the Shura Council of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Yes.

Auhoud Al-Shehail: There were two maybe issues that I would like to address. Number one was the education question, and number two was, thank you for the question, because it’s a very passionate topic that I do also study, and that’s my specialty. Guarantees, to be very honest, there are no guarantees in life. But when we talk about Internet, it is a never-ending evolution. At the same time, we also have to be on the same mode of being in a never-ending evaluation. We always have to be in dialogues that are in different fields and sectors to have a very open, like being very open and honest, just like I said, there are no guarantees. But at the same time, having this balance of when a certain law interferes with another or when local laws interfere with international laws, I do always remember, there’s a saying, I’m being very local here, but the Prophet says, your freedom stops when the freedom of others starts. And this is, I think, where our motto comes from when we talk about freedom of expression and the guarantees of having the rights online. Talking about education, we do have to invest more in education, and not just in research, but understanding it. Because, to be honest, I can see a lot of comments that really think differently about AI, or think differently about governance, because our backgrounds does affect us. So investing in awareness and investing also, our kids have different views about artificial intelligence than we do. We think that artificial, maybe I’m being very naive here, but it’s going to take our jobs. In some cases, it is going to open other jobs. I talked to one of the youth kids, and I was telling him, why don’t you get into artificial intelligence? And he said, why do I have to study it? We look differently at it. Ten years ago, studying artificial intelligence was the new thing. They look at it as a regular thing. So we have to think, not for today, but ten years ahead of us. And it’s also very hard to have a balanced policy that regulates security, and regulates societies, and thinking about harm, at the same time, giving space, and having an open spectrum for all citizens to give their opinions. It is very layered, but at the same time, very simple. And we have to look at it from a very balanced way that education and media interferes with each other. So I hope I didn’t exceed my time.

David Alamos: Thank you very much, Excellency. Let me now give the floor, please, to Her Excellency, the second deputy speaker of the Shura Council of the Kingdom of Bahrain. Please.

Jehad Abdulla Al Fadhel: I think it’s very important to have a balanced policy that regulates the speed of development of the Internet, and also there should be a partnership between the parliament, the government, the private sector, and the civil society, so that we can achieve a safe digital environment for growth. Because by building strong parliamentary capabilities in the digital field, we can guarantee the formation of digital policies in a way that contributes to the development of a legislative environment that is able to protect the rights of citizens, whether they are women, children, or any other citizen, especially in this digital era. Also, regarding the question of the colleague from Algeria, I think about unifying legislation. I think it is appropriate to establish an international parliamentary network that is fully connected to the governance of the Internet and cyber security. And the recommendations of the forum related to parliamentary policies can be applied to this network, so that it takes the right path in legislative procedures for each country separately. And lastly, I think we also need to intensify the penalties in our legislations against the harmful and dangerous uses of the dark Internet, especially crimes related to the smuggling of drugs, money laundering, etc.

David Alamos: Thank you very much, Excellency. Let me now please give the floor to Mr. Jordan Hatfield, the legal adviser of the FBI, please.

Jordan Hadfield: Thank you, sir. Thank you for the question, a wonderful question, really thought-provoking questions from everyone. From an FBI standpoint, when we look at investigatively at anything that comes our way, an investigative lead, a threat that we hear about, we want to know what is real, what is dis- or misinformation, what might be part of a larger narrative for a threat, or what is a threat. And so you have to be able to define those things, as what is an online harm, but what is a threat? What is considered a threat to life, to a child or a threat to life, to a city? You mentioned deepfakes, you mentioned generative imagery, which all of those things we’ve seen grow in the last couple of years. We’re now seeing hoaxes on the rise. Not sure for many of you if this will cross the boundaries, but I remember being in grade school, and someone would pull the fire alarm to be able to get out of classes. Today, you go to jail for that, and there are serious consequences. If you’re an adult and if you’re a juvenile, you’re in trouble. So it’s much easier for someone to pull a hoax or to have a phone call with a threat than it has ever been. And so the thing that we know is true is that the law, certainly in the United States, is evolving. And the evolution of those laws to be able to better provide our industry, but also our law enforcement with tools, to be able to actually take law enforcement action, to help our prosecutors take prosecutorial action, so that we can go after the real threats and not the fake ones. We’re guided by, certainly within the FBI and our agents, by the Constitution, First Amendment freedoms. And so every single time we receive a threat, we have to put it through that lens of, does this violate some nature of… Amendment right, is that First Amendment of freedom, is it someone’s freedom of expression or speech or religion or what, what it might be before we then move to the next level. When we discuss what that looks like, we discuss should it be an investigation, should it be a disruption because something has been violated, or should it be a prevention activity. And I think all of those, those three things don’t always necessarily end up in prosecution and someone behind bars and someone paying some sort of, you know, justice for some crime. Ideally, I think in our world how law enforcement might be shifting the future, we want to prevent as much crime as we can. So if we are able to recognize and identify an online harm that hasn’t passed its way into actual criminal activity, we want to do whatever we can to prevent that before it does become a crime. Thank you.

David Alamos: Thank you very much, Mr. Hatfield. Let me now please give the floor to Mr. Singer from APNIC Foundation.

Rajnesh Singh: Thank you, and I echo my fellow panelists’ comment that there were some great questions that came from the floor, and I wish we could sit here and debate a few of those, but I don’t think we have that much time. Just a couple of things I would like to just pick on. There was mention about the need to bring greater diversity, not just in the tech space but in society in general when it comes to women and the role they play. One of the bodies of work that my organization does is all about empowering women, particularly in the tech industry. We have a fairly substantial program that’s been running in Southeast Asia for a number of years now, and to that end, I mean, I can talk about that, but I know we don’t have much time. But if you’re interested to know more, we have a session on that actually at 4.30 p.m. today in workshop room one, and the title is Breaking Barriers, Empowering Women in Network Engineering. So I’d invite you to come and listen from people who are doing that work and see the difference that can be made. Second, there was talk about how to ensure that we get more females and perhaps gender-diverse people as well online. One way to perhaps address that is trying to build safe spaces. There are social, cultural, and economic reasons that that cannot happen, so creating these safe spaces for them may be one way to approach it. And the last point I’d like to make was talk about how there are global or multinational tech companies, and they are all over the world. We use their apps and services, but there’s nothing stopping a local company from developing that either. That’s the beauty of the open Internet model, the multi-stakeholder model that’s been used to develop that Internet means that anyone can basically create any application or services. Whether it’s successful or not, the market will decide. But one thing that I do see missing, and this is perhaps a message to the parliamentarians in the room and online, is that you should look at how your citizens can become creators and not just consumers of what’s available on the Internet. And to do that, you could look at how do you actually support a sustainable local digital ecosystem, not just depend on a foreign digital ecosystem so that you’re just consuming stuff from overseas. That could be the way through innovation hubs to getting education programs in place through tertiary institutions. Lots of ways to do it, but I’ll just leave that as food for thought. Again, thank you for the opportunity.

David Alamos: Thank you very much, Mr. Singh. Let me now turn to Ambassador Dowling from Australia, please.

Brendan Dowling: Thank you. One of the questions went to balancing innovation and rights with measures that governments take to address online harms. I think because we’re at the Internet Governance Forum, I want to underscore your point, Raj, that when we’re talking about content issues, there is a sovereign right for governments to take measures to address online harms. But what we must do is preserve the technical underpinnings of the Internet. So we need to separate these two issues and say content moderation, online harms is a national jurisdiction in consultation globally, but the global interoperability of the technical layer of the Internet is something that we must preserve and not interfere with through national legislation. On how we strike that balance, it’s difficult. It requires us to be considered, thoughtful, consultative, to work with civil society, to work with industry. What I would say is every new phase of digital technology, be it software, social media, AI, immediately we see bad actors utilise this technology to conduct harmful activity. Every new phase see women and girls targeted by malicious actors using this new technology. It’s frustrating when we seem to be surprised by that. We see technology platforms developing AI tools and then saying, oh, turns out it is being used to generate abusive images of women online. We should know and expect, and we need to talk about safety by design at every phase of new technology because we know how the technology will be misused and abused. We have seen this year for the first time a reduction in women participating in public life, in running for parliament because they are subjected to so much abuse online. Our view is the idea that the technology industry and social media companies have been saying for many years, don’t worry, we’ve got this, we’re taking care of our users, they’re not. They have failed abjectly for many years to have true accountability, to really prioritise safety by design, which is why we see governments like ours taking measures to better protect our people online. The balance needs to be struck to say our legislation must always prioritise human rights, must always prioritise privacy, must always be subject to the rule of law. There is a right way to do this, but the days of just accepting the digital world is a free-for-all of the wild west are over. We need to be active in protecting our people online. As I said, it needs to be consultative, it needs to take into account the rights, it needs to take into account privacy. We are implementing a ban on social media accounts for under 16-year-olds. The question went to the consultation with youth. This has been a long-standing community concern that the documented and researched harms to children from social media have not been adequately addressed by social media companies. We now have a 12-month runway to develop how that tool will be developed and implemented. That will involve significant consultation and work on what the technical solutions are. I would say the responsibility through that legislation will be on the platforms to develop tools to limit use of social media accounts by children. It will not impact on the use of the internet for educational and other purposes. It is a big step. It’s a world-leading step. It’s not without controversy, it’s not without difficulty in its design, but I think our movement on that issue comes from a sense of frustration that we have not seen adequate measures by technology platforms to protect the well-being of children online.

David Alamos: Thank you very much, Excellency. Let me turn now to Mrs Nijata from the Oversight Board. Please, you have the floor.

Nighat Dad: There were two questions. One was related to why a platform company needs an Oversight Board when there are universal laws. I would say that any powerful institution or entity actually needs an oversight. We do have oversight bodies and committees in the Parliament to keep check on government actions as well. We do need these oversight bodies over internet companies and tech giants, what they are exactly doing. We don’t want a bunch of white dudes sitting in Silicon Valley deciding for the rest of the world. If you look at decisions of Oversight Board, you will see that we actually have looked into the international human rights framework. That’s the central approach while we decide these cases. I think it’s also important for us to know that while governments are legislating and initiating regulations around technology and tech platforms, let’s just be honest, many governments are also departing from human rights framework. It’s important for us to see how we can hold not only tech companies accountable, but governments as well. That’s something, not as a member of Oversight Board, but as a civil society member working on digital rights in Pakistan. With regards to your question, Your Excellency, around context, I would say the board is a very diverse group of people. We have a board member from Africa. Her name is Ms. Afia. If you look at the decisions of the board, they are from all regions. One very small example that maybe people sitting in the room will relate to, META reached out to us for a particular term, Shaheed, which is an Arabic word. This is the most over-enforced word on the platform, and they reached out to us asking us, give us advice on how we can approach this particular terminology. We all know, I’m in Pakistan, in India, in Bangladesh, in Saudi Arabia, the word Shaheed we use in different ways, there are different contexts. Coming to your point of context, we actually deliberated on that particular issue for a year and received comments from all over the world. We told META that you should stop presuming that the word Shaheed, when used to refer to a designated individual or unnamed members of a designated organization, is always violating and ineligible for policy exceptions. There is this context that maybe Global North does not understand what the word Shaheed means. We do understand. That’s what we told META to do, and they are actually implementing our recommendations. I will actually encourage parliamentarians sitting in the room to read the decisions that we have given, because there’s so much nuance in there. It will not only help the parliamentarians while they are drafting their own laws, but also while they are looking into seeing the body and presuming that this is just the Global North body. It’s not. It’s a very diverse body, and we are making all the efforts to hold this company accountable, and I feel that all other companies also need to have such kind of bodies. But Mr. Ambassador, I would like to really appreciate the E-Safety Commission, the work that Madam Julia has done and also encouraged commissioners all over the world. She also really appreciates our work and all the work that we have done. One of our priorities now is to look into the well-being of young people on the platform as well. Thank you.

David Alamos: I would like to say that we have the pleasure to count also in the room with the Speaker of the Parliament of Kenya. I would like to give him the floor, please.

Audience: Thank you so much. I know we are in the decision, but I don’t want to take this opportunity to welcome His Excellency, President of Kenya Parliament, and thank you on behalf of our Shura Council Speaker, Dr. Abdallah Sheikh. I would like to welcome him and thank him for his attending. And I will pass the mic for him if he would like to say some remarks, please. Okay, no problem. I am the President of the Parliament of Guinea. I came here, like the other countries in the world, like the other parliamentarians, to bring our solidarity, to bring our support to the very relevant debates that are taking place in this country today, dedicated to the governance of the Internet, which is no longer a secret to anyone. The Internet has become a social necessity, a cultural necessity, a necessity for the development of the economy and the modernization of the world. But it is extremely important that the issue of the Internet is debated in an appropriate institutional framework, where all the actors, both the politicians, the multinationals, the parliamentarians, as well as the representatives of civil society and the media, can each communicate and bring their point of view. In a few words today, digital solidarity is an essential alternative to build a globally turned world towards human values. Digital solidarity is an obligatory step to allow the balanced development of the whole world. Because without digital solidarity, the gap between developed and underdeveloped countries will still widen. And with technology, inequalities are even more serious. That is why I invite all of you here to invest in a process of regulation of the Internet through national laws, but also international agreements that can guarantee the use of the Internet in respect of human rights. And to conclude, I thank and congratulate the Saudi authorities for the opportunity given to my country to come and bring their opinions, their ideas, to this debate which is extremely important for a globally resilient world, for a world where human rights are respected. I conclude by simply saying that the Internet is very good. It is an obligation today for a modern world, but the Internet must be used in respect of human rights. So humanizing the Internet is what can allow the world to evolve towards shared prosperity. And I want to inform developed countries, those that have a certain technological breakthrough, let’s agree that the gap between technologically developed countries and underdeveloped countries as long as they are created, the world will not know stability and social peace. That is why digital solidarity is the key word that I am carrying today on behalf of all African countries, on behalf of all African parliaments. Thank you for your attention.

David Alamos: Thank you very much, Excellency, for your enlightening message, absolutely. We are a bit above the schedule, so I would like just to very briefly conclude this distinguished panel of experts and the session. I would like just to insist and to highlight how important it is really to have a multi-stakeholder approach, a collaborative approach, basically to address online harms. We have huge challenges ahead. We need a whole of society and a whole of government approach, now more than ever in these specific issues, to ensure that we provide safety online. We need to take special consideration, especially to the most vulnerable groups. We need to ensure that human rights are at the front of all the decisions and the actions that we are going to decide, basically. And we have to ensure access is very important. It has been said here, it has been said in previous sessions, so we need to ensure access to everybody in a safety environment and we need to enhance education, we need to enhance capacities so that we are able to have a better scenario, a better access and a better benefits of internet. And of course, this has to be done with precise and accurate laws. We have a very important role by members of parliament on these accurate laws that are able to be implemented and that we are able also to have an oversight mechanism also to see how the implementation of the laws are. So with that, I would like to thank first the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia for hosting this fantastic event here in this fantastic venue and also to the Shura Council of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and to IGF and of course I would like to thank each of the distinguished and excellent speakers that have accompanied us during this panel and to all of you for your intervention and questions. Thank you very much and have a very nice day. Thank you.

Agreement Points

Multi-stakeholder approach to address online harms

Jordan Hadfield

Brendan Dowling

Rajnesh Singh

Nighat Dad

Auhoud Al-Shehail

Jehad Abdulla Al Fadhel

Collaboration between law enforcement, industry, and prosecutors

Government legislation driven by community concerns

Need for open, interoperable internet infrastructure

Importance of diverse oversight bodies for tech platforms

Balancing rights and security in legislation

Partnership between parliament, government, private sector and civil society

All speakers emphasized the importance of collaboration between various stakeholders in addressing online harms, including government, industry, civil society, and international partners.

Protecting vulnerable groups online

Jordan Hadfield

Brendan Dowling

Rajnesh Singh

Nighat Dad

Auhoud Al-Shehail

Addressing child exploitation through international task forces

Legislation to protect children from online harms

Programs to empower women in tech

Considering cultural context in content moderation

Education and awareness initiatives

Speakers agreed on the need to protect vulnerable groups, particularly children and women, from online harms through various means including legislation, education, and targeted programs.

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized the importance of incorporating safety and human rights considerations from the outset in technology development and oversight.

Brendan Dowling

Nighat Dad

Safety by design in new technologies

Using human rights frameworks in oversight

Both speakers highlighted the importance of local capacity building and education in addressing online harms and promoting digital development.

Rajnesh Singh

Auhoud Al-Shehail

Supporting local digital ecosystems

Education and awareness initiatives

Unexpected Consensus

Need for ongoing evaluation and adaptation of policies

Auhoud Al-Shehail

Brendan Dowling

Ongoing evaluation of policies

Safety by design in new technologies

Despite coming from different backgrounds, both speakers emphasized the need for continuous evaluation and adaptation of policies to keep pace with rapidly evolving technology and emerging threats.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The speakers generally agreed on the importance of multi-stakeholder collaboration, protecting vulnerable groups online, and the need for ongoing policy adaptation. There was also consensus on the importance of balancing innovation with regulation and human rights considerations.

Consensus level

High level of consensus among speakers, suggesting a shared understanding of key challenges and potential approaches to addressing online harms. This consensus implies potential for coordinated international efforts in developing policies and strategies to combat online harms while preserving the benefits of digital technologies.

Different Viewpoints

Role of government regulation in addressing online harms

Brendan Dowling

Rajnesh Singh

Government legislation driven by community concerns

Need for open, interoperable internet infrastructure

Dowling advocates for stronger government regulation to address online harms, while Singh emphasizes the importance of maintaining an open and interoperable internet infrastructure, cautioning against over-regulation that could impact core internet functionality.

Unexpected Differences

Approach to addressing online harms

Jordan Hadfield

Brendan Dowling

Collaboration between law enforcement, industry, and prosecutors

Government legislation driven by community concerns

While both speakers advocate for addressing online harms, their approaches differ unexpectedly. Hadfield emphasizes international collaboration and task forces, focusing on law enforcement and prosecution, while Dowling prioritizes government legislation driven by community concerns. This difference is notable given that both represent government perspectives.

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement revolve around the role of government regulation, the balance between innovation and protection, and the most effective approaches to addressing online harms.

difference_level

The level of disagreement among the speakers is moderate. While there is general consensus on the need to address online harms and protect vulnerable groups, there are significant differences in the proposed methods and the extent of government involvement. These differences reflect the complex nature of internet governance and the challenges in balancing various stakeholder interests. The implications of these disagreements suggest that a unified approach to addressing online harms may be difficult to achieve, and that solutions may need to be tailored to specific cultural and legal contexts.

Partial Agreements

Both speakers agree on the need to protect vulnerable groups online, particularly children. However, they differ in their approaches. Dowling supports government legislation, such as banning social media accounts for under 16-year-olds, while Dad emphasizes the importance of considering cultural context in content moderation decisions through diverse oversight bodies.

Brendan Dowling

Nighat Dad

Legislation to protect children from online harms

Considering cultural context in content moderation

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized the importance of incorporating safety and human rights considerations from the outset in technology development and oversight.

Brendan Dowling

Nighat Dad

Safety by design in new technologies

Using human rights frameworks in oversight

Both speakers highlighted the importance of local capacity building and education in addressing online harms and promoting digital development.

Rajnesh Singh

Auhoud Al-Shehail

Supporting local digital ecosystems

Education and awareness initiatives

Key Takeaways

A multi-stakeholder, collaborative approach is crucial for addressing online harms effectively

Protecting vulnerable groups like children and women online is a key priority

There is a need to balance innovation, rights, and regulation in the digital space

Addressing the digital divide and ensuring equitable access is important for global stability

Education and awareness are critical for safe internet use

Precise and implementable legislation is needed to govern the online space

Oversight mechanisms are important for both tech companies and governments

Resolutions and Action Items

Australia implementing a ban on social media accounts for under 16-year-olds, with a 12-month development period

FBI participating in international task forces and Interpol specialist groups to combat online child exploitation

APNIC Foundation running programs to empower women in tech in Southeast Asia

Oversight Board advising META on context-specific content moderation, e.g. for the term ‘Shaheed’

Unresolved Issues

How to effectively balance freedom of expression with protection from online harms

Addressing the potential job losses due to AI and automation

How to ensure consistent application of content moderation across different cultural contexts

Developing a unified approach to internet governance across different countries

How to close the digital divide between developed and developing countries

Suggested Compromises

Creating safe online spaces for vulnerable groups while maintaining open internet access

Implementing safety-by-design principles in new technologies to preemptively address potential harms

Balancing national sovereignty in content regulation with preserving global interoperability of internet infrastructure

Engaging in extensive consultation with various stakeholders, including youth, when developing new internet regulations

The rapid evolution of technology brings with it a lot of benefits, but also brings different forms of what does harm mean. And the starting point, I do believe, as a Parliament member is, what does online harm mean? Because we keep talking about it, but we really don’t know, because as technology develops, those forms and those harms keep developing.

speaker

Auhoud Al-Shehail

reason

This comment highlights the fundamental challenge of defining and addressing online harms in a rapidly evolving technological landscape. It sets the stage for a more nuanced discussion about the complexities involved in legislating for online safety.

impact

It shifted the conversation towards the need for flexible and adaptable approaches to online harm regulation, prompting other speakers to address the challenges of balancing innovation with protection.

Australia has been quite active in addressing online harms. We’ve been very active in passing legislation that drives greater accountability for social media platforms, for technology platforms to take more serious action to address online harms. That has all been driven by multi-stakeholder approach.

speaker

Brendan Dowling

reason

This comment provides a concrete example of how a country is addressing online harms through legislation and multi-stakeholder engagement. It offers a practical perspective on implementing regulatory frameworks.

impact

It sparked discussion about the role of government regulation and the importance of involving various stakeholders in developing policies to address online harms.

I think you also have to be very clear on what the internet is not. And what I mean by that is that the internet itself is the core infrastructure that makes all this happen. Applications and services, the things that people use on the internet, are a different thing. And I think too often we conflate the two.

speaker

Rajnesh Singh

reason

This comment introduces an important distinction between internet infrastructure and applications/services, highlighting a common misconception in discussions about internet regulation.

impact

It prompted a more nuanced conversation about the targets of regulation and the potential unintended consequences of poorly targeted policies on the core functioning of the internet.

We receive these comments, we process them, and then we deliberate on our cases. One of the examples just recently is the case that we decided is over the phrase on river to the sea, which was basically users around the world had this complaint that it was over-enforced on META platforms.

speaker

Nighat Dad

reason

This comment provides a concrete example of how the Oversight Board operates, demonstrating the practical application of multi-stakeholder input in content moderation decisions.

impact

It led to a deeper discussion about the challenges of content moderation across different cultural contexts and the importance of diverse perspectives in decision-making processes.

We see technology platforms developing AI tools and then saying, oh, turns out it is being used to generate abusive images of women online. We should know and expect, and we need to talk about safety by design at every phase of new technology because we know how the technology will be misused and abused.

speaker

Brendan Dowling

reason

This comment highlights the need for proactive approaches to technology development that anticipate potential misuse, particularly in relation to vulnerable groups.

impact

It shifted the discussion towards the responsibilities of technology companies and the need for preventative measures in technology design and implementation.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by highlighting the complexities of defining and addressing online harms in a rapidly evolving technological landscape. They emphasized the need for multi-stakeholder approaches, the importance of distinguishing between internet infrastructure and services, and the necessity of proactive, culturally sensitive approaches to content moderation and technology development. The discussion evolved from general concerns about online harms to more specific considerations of regulatory approaches, the role of oversight bodies, and the responsibilities of technology companies in ensuring online safety.

How to balance addressing online harms with protecting freedom of expression and other rights?

speaker

Audience member (unnamed)

explanation

This is a key challenge in regulating online spaces while preserving fundamental rights.

How to combat the use of AI and advanced technologies by malicious actors to create more sophisticated online harms?

speaker

Audience member (unnamed)

explanation

As AI advances, there are concerns about its potential misuse to create more harmful content like deepfakes.

How to address unemployment concerns arising from AI and automation?

speaker

Baraa Julien (Cameroon National Assembly member)

explanation

There are fears about job losses in certain sectors as AI and automation increase.

How to bridge the digital divide between developed and developing countries?

speaker

Audience member (unnamed)

explanation

Ensuring equitable access to digital technologies globally remains a challenge.

How can content moderation practices account for different cultural contexts?

speaker

Senator Shweba Falabe Salisu (Nigeria)

explanation

Content considered harmless in some regions may be harmful in others, requiring nuanced moderation approaches.

How to ensure transparency in algorithms used by tech companies, especially in Africa?

speaker

Senator Shweba Falabe Salisu (Nigeria)

explanation

There are concerns about tech companies potentially operating with different standards in different regions.

How to create safe online spaces for women and girls?

speaker

Audience member (unnamed, representing Parliamentary Assembly of the Mediterranean)

explanation

Women and girls face disproportionate online abuse, impacting their participation in public life.

How to support the development of local digital ecosystems?

speaker

Rajnesh Singh (APNIC Foundation)

explanation

Encouraging local innovation and creation, not just consumption of foreign digital products.

Summary

This discussion focused on youth participation in digital governance and policymaking, bringing together parliamentarians and youth leaders. The conversation highlighted the importance of including young people in legislative processes and decision-making regarding digital technologies and artificial intelligence.

Parliamentarians shared various initiatives to engage youth, such as youth parliaments, lowering the age for political participation, and creating mentorship programs. They emphasized the need for inclusive policymaking that considers the perspectives of young people who have grown up with digital technologies.

Youth representatives stressed the importance of genuine participation rather than tokenism. They called for institutionalizing youth involvement through consultative bodies, structured forums, and fair compensation for their contributions. The discussion also touched on the challenges of funding youth political participation and changing cultural perceptions about young politicians.

Several key points emerged, including the need for contextualized legislation that considers local disparities in digital access and literacy, the importance of accountability in protecting digital rights, and the value of intergenerational dialogue in shaping digital policies. Participants also discussed the balance between embracing technological opportunities and addressing potential risks.

The conversation concluded with calls for responsible digital education, mechanisms for youth to directly petition parliaments, and recognition of young people as partners rather than beneficiaries in policymaking. Overall, the discussion underscored the critical role of youth in shaping a more inclusive digital future and the need for sustained efforts to empower their participation in governance processes.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– The importance of youth participation in policymaking and digital governance

– Strategies for engaging youth in political processes, like youth parliaments and lowering voting ages

– Challenges in including youth perspectives, such as funding and communication gaps

– The need for responsible digital education and balancing youth engagement with national security concerns

– The unique perspective youth bring to digital issues given their familiarity with technology

Overall purpose:

The goal was to foster dialogue between youth leaders and parliamentarians on priorities for a more inclusive digital future, exploring how young people can effectively contribute to policymaking and legislative procedures related to digital governance.

Tone:

The discussion had a collaborative and constructive tone throughout. There was a sense of mutual respect between the youth representatives and parliamentarians, with both sides acknowledging the importance of youth involvement while also recognizing the need for responsible engagement. The tone became more urgent and action-oriented towards the end as participants made final appeals for concrete steps to increase youth participation.

Speakers

– Keith Andere: Moderator

– Sahar Albazar: Member of Parliament from Egypt

– Ihita Gangavarapu: Coordinator of India Youth IGF

– Duaa Albalawi: Head of Y20 delegation at Y20 summit in Brazil

– Dansa Kourouma: President of the Parliament of the Republic of Guinea

– Tobias Bacherle: Member of Parliament from Germany

Additional speakers:

– Jose Keja: From Ghana African Youth IGF

– Noa Abdubeki: From Egypt

– Srinath Govindarajan: From India

– Matilda Moses Mashauri: Youth participant

– Alpha Abdoulaye Diallo: President of the Economic Affairs and Sustainable Development Commission of the Guinean Parliament

– Alha Jimbo: Member of the Gambia and Pan-African Parliament

– Unnamed Senator from Nigeria

Youth Participation in Digital Governance: Insights from the IGF Parliamentary Track

This summary provides an overview of a discussion on youth participation in digital governance and policymaking, held as part of the Internet Governance Forum’s (IGF) parliamentary track. The event brought together parliamentarians and youth leaders from various countries, exploring strategies for engaging young people in legislative processes and decision-making regarding digital technologies and artificial intelligence.

Introduction and Context

The discussion, moderated by a representative from the Inter-Parliamentary Union, aimed to bridge the gap between policymakers and youth in the realm of digital governance. Participants spoke in both English and French, highlighting the international nature of the dialogue.

Key Themes and Contributions

1. Increasing Youth Representation in Politics

Sahar Albazar, a Member of Parliament from Egypt, advocated for lowering voting and candidacy ages to increase youth representation. She highlighted Egypt’s efforts, including the World Youth Forum, which brings together young people from around the globe to discuss pressing issues.

Dansa Kourouma, President of the Parliament of the Republic of Guinea, shared his country’s initiative of creating a National Youth Parliament. This body allows young people to debate issues and present recommendations to the national parliament, fostering direct engagement in the legislative process.

2. Empowering Youth Through Resources and Recognition

Tobias Bacherle, a Member of Parliament from Germany, emphasized the need to provide funding and resources to enable youth political participation. He noted, “We grew up with mobile phones, with smartphones… So many things that seem to be a change for all the colleagues, because they witnessed how media and media usage has changed, is for us rather something that we are completely used to.”

Ihita Gangavarapu, Coordinator of India Youth IGF, stressed the importance of treating youth as partners, not just beneficiaries, in policymaking. She called for institutionalizing youth consultation in legislative processes to ensure consistent and meaningful engagement.

3. Digital Rights and Ethical AI Development

Duaa Albalawi, Head of Y20 delegation at Y20 summit in Brazil, asserted that “Youth participation is not a privilege. It is a God-given right.” She called for building a global ethical framework for AI development and regulation, as well as empowering citizens to protect their data privacy and ownership.

4. Balancing Innovation with Traditional Values

Dansa Kourouma raised an important point about the relationship between technological progress and cultural values: “Do you agree with me that modernity, the race towards innovation and modernity, cannot be decided by the government alone? It is necessary for parliaments and parliamentarians to be convinced that modernity should not be the antipode of traditional values, of human values.”

5. Responsible Digital Citizenship and Security Concerns

The importance of responsible digital education was highlighted by several speakers. Dansa Kourouma emphasized the need to educate youth on the responsible use of technology and social media.

An unnamed Nigerian Senator introduced a note of caution, stating, “Countries are not run on social media. Countries also have, I mean, the youth, as they are doing the engagement, as they are on social media, they must also know that certain things border on national security.” This comment highlighted the need to balance digital engagement with awareness of broader national concerns.

6. Strategies for Youth Engagement

Several practical strategies were proposed to enhance communication and collaboration between young people and policymakers:

– Using social media and digital tools for political communication (Tobias Bacherle)

– Creating mentorship programs connecting youth with parliamentarians (Sahar Albazar)

– Broadcasting parliamentary debates on social media platforms (Dansa Kourouma)

– Establishing mechanisms for youth to directly petition parliaments (mentioned by multiple speakers)

Conclusion

The discussion underscored the critical role of youth in shaping a more inclusive digital future and the need for sustained efforts to empower their participation in governance processes. It highlighted the importance of balancing technological progress with cultural values, security considerations, and responsible use of technology.

The moderator concluded the session by thanking the participants and inviting them to future IGF events, emphasizing the ongoing nature of this important dialogue on youth participation in digital governance.

Keith Andere: the colleagues 33 seconds to just say their name and one interesting thing about them so that the colleagues can remember who you are and what is interesting about you. So we always talk about future generations and the future is now so as the future generations are the most affected by our global future young people have a leading role in the digital transformation journey in all aspects you know through our dedicated youth track a global network of young people active in the digital sphere has organized workshops across all regions around the theme empowering youth leaders for trusted AI which will culminate into the IGF 2024 youth summit that has already happened for some of you who already followed that and this session just brings together youth leaders and parliamentarians to foster a dialogue on priorities and perspective for a more inclusive digital future so having said that I want to give my able panelists just 30 seconds 33 seconds to say your name and something interesting about yourself thank you maybe I’ll start on my far right

Sahar Albazar: thank you my name is MP Sahar Albazar I’m from Egypt something to remember me with I am one of the young women parliamentarians in Egypt but I will forever be young at heart

Ihita Gangavarapu: hi everyone good afternoon I’m Aihita Gangavarapu the coordinator of India Youth IGF so it’s a pleasure to be here and one interesting thing about me the fact that I belong to one of the most one of the most populous nations and with more than 50% of the population is young people and it’s a privilege to be working with young people in the last seven years

Duaa Albalawi: hi everyone my name is Dua Al-Blouie a fun fact about me is my name is Dua which means prayer in Arabic because I was actually born premature at six months old and my parents thought I was going to pass away a little bit about me and why I’m here today so I actually headed the Y20 delegation at the Y20 summit in Brazil earlier this year so hopefully today I’ll be sharing our collective perspective as G20 countries thank you so much

Keith Andere: thank you Dua and the honorable speaker you have the floor

Dansa Kourouma: merci beaucoup je suis Dansa Kuruman je suis le président du parlement de la République de Guinée dans la capitale de Conakry et je suis médecin de formation et avant d’être au parlement j’étais le président du conseil national de la société civile de la Guinée donc de l’hôpital à la société civile et aujourd’hui à la tête du parlement merci merci beaucoup

Keith Andere: so we’ll go straight to the meat and the flesh of the discussion today and it’s only obvious that we start off with our members of parliament and so I’ll put straight the questions to you from your perspective as members of parliament how can young people most effectively contribute to the policy making and legislative procedures maybe you can provide some concrete examples from your respective countries and parliaments if you may

Sahar Albazar: sure thank you so much for the important question I would start with that young people are not only the future but they are our active contributors and in our present time for policies and legislations I will give few examples in Egypt how we can engage young people in our processes in 2017 for example our president Abdel Fattah el-Sisi launched the World Youth Forum which is a platform where we bring young people from all around the world to come and spend almost a week in Egypt where they come together have voice and this platform yield at the end of the day a collective voice of Egyptian young people who created an entity or a body called the Coordination Committee for parties young leaders and youth leaders and politicians this committee now have in parliament 31 MP and 12 in our senate so we were able to move these young people from only a platform they were just voicing their wishes to be part of the parliament that’s one of the initiatives another thing is which is very close to my heart it’s the simulation of the parliament where we go to schools and the students have simulation for the parliament and after they do the simulation we do a competition and the winner the winning school will have the group of these students come to the parliament itself to live the real parliamentary experience so this is very close to my heart because we are not only trying to empower youth we also include the children in the schools which is very important for the coming generations sorry I thought someone was speaking another thing is mentorship this is also very important because usually when you ask a kid in the school or a young person in a university what would what what do you want to do when you grow up how or where do you see yourself in the future being a politician is not something that is close to the mind so mentoring them and having MPs who are close to their age a little bit it’s very important to to have role models that really can speak to you can use your language understand your issues that you feel comfortable speaking with so mentorship is very very important and I personally always volunteer in my time to mentor African youth and also there are networks for global youth where I spend more time trying to mentor young people another important aspect for me is or tool that we as parliaments and as governments and as countries can use is to reduce and decrease the the running age running for elections age. So, for example, in Egypt in 2014, when we have the constitution change, we changed the age, the minimum age for running from 30 to 25. And in my global advocacy work, we’re trying to push to have the age of having driving license, which is the same age where you can vote, can be the same age where you can run. Because if you are wise enough to choose who to vote for, you’re definitely wise enough to run if you want. And you can find other countries, like in the US, in a state level parliament, like in Vermont, their parliament, all the representatives are starting 18. So this is also an example of how you include and engage young people in the process of decision making and policy making. I will end here, so I can give the rest time to contribute.

Keith Andere: So that sounds very interesting. And I like how you’ve closed it by saying, you know, the importance of making sure, and I think it’s practical in most of our countries, that we can’t run at the age where we start voting. So that is something to point about. But we have another colleague, Honorable Tobias, who is a member of parliament from Germany, who is connected online. But before we come to him, the Honorable Speaker would like to make a statement. So I would like to invite him to share his statement.

Dansa Kourouma: Thank you, Honorable Moderator. For my part, I would like to start by thanking the Saudi authorities and all the organizers of this forum, which is of indisputable relevance. And if you visit Riyadh, you have the obligation to be convinced of a reality, that modernity and the conservation of authentic values are considerable. There is a possibility of having a dialogue between the race towards modernity, while keeping the traditional values, the authentic values. This is the most important observation in Riyadh. So this leads me to develop my thesis on a certain number of considerations, which are both the responsibilities of parliaments, but also the responsibilities of states. Do you agree with me that modernity, the race towards innovation and modernity, cannot be decided by the government alone? It is necessary for parliaments and parliamentarians to be convinced that modernity should not be the antipode of traditional values, of human values. Because my conviction is that any economic, scientific and technical progress that leaves the human value behind is counterproductive. This is why when we talk about artificial intelligence, we talk about robotics, we talk about everything that is considered from a technological point of view today, we must be vigilant that scientific and technological progress does not leave the human being, does not leave human values in the background. This is why parliamentarians are led to legislate while taking into account the aspirations of their people. This is why technological progress is impossible without the adhesion of parliaments, which are the representations of the different diversities that make up the countries. The second consideration that seems to me to be important is that artificial intelligence is a decision-making tool, and it is a decision-making tool that must be made by the government. It is a decision-making tool, and it is a decision-making tool that must be made by the government. It is also an opportunity, but we are responsible as parliamentarians to provide countries with better laws, better policies and programs that enable the use of artificial intelligence to be humanized. But the question of knowing whether we should go towards artificial intelligence is no longer a question. It is a reality, it is an essential perspective. But how to go about it? We must be guaranteed by laws, laws that prevent drift, laws that prevent dehumanization, laws that prevent the recolonization of countries that have not advanced in terms of technology. Because if colonization by man has been difficult to support, technological colonization is even more serious because we are dealing with machines, we are dealing with systems that are not human. So, it is extremely important that national laws are put in line with international laws. This is why national laws alone are not enough to frame, to tame artificial intelligence. Conventions and international laws must be rethought between countries through cooperation between states and the involvement of the United Nations and other organizations and other international bodies. This is what can guarantee the use of artificial intelligence today for the well-being of the population, for social and economic progress. I would like to add a third element from the point of view of consideration. It is education and digital solidarity. As I said earlier in my introduction, if I am present at this meeting to represent my parliament, it is to make the countries that have advanced in terms of technology understand that they will not feel safe unless other countries are at the bottom of the scale. We need solidarity because communication today, the reduction of gaps between nations, between peoples, is a challenge to the current world. This is why we must not accept that the gap grows between countries that have advanced and countries that are poor. If the world is a planetary village, it means that we must communicate with each other, we must help each other. This is why solidarity and digital education, especially for the benefit of youth, is an extremely important alternative for countries. I would like to add one last element. Our young MP earlier referred to the reduction of the age to participate in elections in countries. This is also the responsibility of the parliament. I am giving a consideration. In my country, 75% of young people participate in elections. 70% of the population is under 40, 75% of the population. But there are less than 20% of young people under 40 in parliament. This is a paradox. This is why parliamentarians must be extremely vigilant and that laws must reflect the needs of the population, the needs of society. It should not be dictated by interests, by sovereignty, necessarily. It is the possibility given to the entire population to participate in public governance. For me, this is extremely important. In my country, the age to be a deputy was 25 years. We reduced it in the new constitution to 21 years to allow 75% of the population to participate. And the age for the presidential election, we reduced it to 35 years to allow young people, according to the African Charter of Youth, to also participate in the presidential elections. To conclude my remarks, the Internet, artificial intelligence, is a way to improve democratic governance today, in particular to facilitate the participation of all layers of the population wherever they are in the elections. Artificial intelligence, the digital, allows to reduce the constraints related to the participation of one and the other. But beware, it is also an open door to electoral fraud. If the laws and conventions are not respected and the developed countries do not cooperate with the underdeveloped countries to regulate the use and use of the Internet for the good of the population. I am for the Internet, I am for artificial intelligence, but I am for the responsibility of parliamentarians, the responsibility of states and international institutions so that the Internet does not constitute an uncontrollable monster that dehumanizes the world instead of facilitating prosperity and accelerating growth and global development. Thank you.

Keith Andere: I believe we will resonate with. And for us who come from Africa, some of us will remember the Not Too Young to Run campaign, which was influencing and urging young people to take up this space. So this is a very, very valid conversation. So we will take up Honorable Tobias, who is a member of parliament from Germany. Unfortunately, our display screens are doing the tech thing, so we are not able to see him, but I believe we can hear him. Tobias, if you can hear me, just say hello.

Tobias Bacherle: Hi, good to hear you. At least I can see you as well so. Well, I can promise everyone that you’re handsome. So please go straight to answering the questions. Thank you. Yeah, thank you very much. And first of all, sorry, I cannot be there in person. Maybe that’s a fun fact I have for you. I had to vote on our snap elections yesterday. And since we have plenary tomorrow, again, I was not able to fly over for just half a day. But I’m very sorry for that. I think it’s very interesting to talk about young people in politics, in the field of digitalization. Because, I mean, of course, there is, we already heard about young people playing plenary sessions. And I think this is incredibly important. Young people are our future. They are the future of our democracies, of our parliamentarian systems as well. But besides that, it’s also important to have a different way of communication with them. And I mean, I don’t mean that they should be not taken serious. I don’t don’t mean that. Just talk to them as you would talk to any citizen, of course. But they have different ways of communication. And yeah, many, many older people by now also use WhatsApp and Facebook and Instagram and so on. But I think there’s one very important difference for, and I’m still saying I turned 30 now. So I’m not really young, young, young anymore. But I still would take myself into the younger generation. We grew up with mobile phones, with smartphones, and so on. When I was, I think, 12, the iPhone was introduced. So many things that seem to be a change for all the colleagues, because they witnessed how media and media usage has changed. is for us rather something that we are completely used to, that is the environment we grew up with, that we feel comfortable getting information and also having political debates. And I think this is important to take into account. We see many older colleagues, many very smart politicians that drive their platforms throughout digital communication skills. But I think very often, if we look very closely, there are younger people involved that are actually driving that campaign, that are pushing for those parts in the campaign. But there is also a different or second part in having that perspective on digital communication tools, because I would argue digital communication tools and the platforms that I have mentioned before, and I mean, those are huge companies that have a certain interest making money, but they also provide a critical infrastructure for our political debates. And I think this is something, as much as I value older colleagues and sometimes even envy how much they have experienced and how much they also can recall from their memory, I think what I just described in a matter on how do we communicate to young people also goes for how do we politically approach digital topics? How much value, how much central points do we give to digital communication tools? And what I often experience is that older colleagues, if they don’t understand something, in Europe, we have that when it came to telegram, we had the big demonstrations around the corona. Basically, jump to was like being a bit afraid and deciding to talk about, shall we forbid telegram? How can we shut down that kind of information system? And I think that’s something we should not do. The contrary, and many young people were like, excuse my language, but we’re like, what the fuck are you talking about? First of all, how do you want to do that on technical level? And second of all, this is our information space. We don’t shut down your TV stations or your newspapers as well. And I think having that part within the debate is incredibly powerful. And it again, involves young people also in politics because it’s topics that are very close to their heart and reflect their reality.

Keith Andere: Thanks Tobias. I think what you’re talking about, especially the political communication and the role of digital tools to support political communication is a very big conversation. Now that you’re talking about young people being behind the keyboards, supporting key political players around this and the issue of shutdowns, be it platform shutdown, be it throttling of the internet, are very big and pertinent conversations that I’ve had from various young people and various forums that we are here. And I think it’s important that this has come out from a young parliamentarian from a Global North perspective. So we’ll dive straight to our youth leaders and not to gag you, just maintain three minutes of time so that we are able to flow. I can see already hands coming up and it’s not yet time. So young people are critical voice in digital governance. Do you agree? At least we can agree. As dedicated youth representatives, what would you like members of our parliaments to consider in the legislative procedure? And maybe what are some of the obstacles and further including youth perspectives in digital governance? Over to you. Perfect, three minutes. Okay.

Ihita Gangavarapu: Hi everyone, I’m Aihita. So I’d like to start off with talking about the vision of the internet itself, right? Me personally, as a young person would want the internet to be a truly digital public infrastructure that is secure, safe, reliable, and accessible for all. Now, this is not something that’s possible just by young people or just by lawmakers. It’s a cooperation and collaboration between the both. So that brings us to your question around legislative procedures. And the most important aspect of the legislative procedure is for it to truly empower all of us. And that’s possible if we have an inclusive policymaking and legislative procedure. And when I say that, I’m talking about real youth participation. So youth itself is not a monolith. We, within the young people category, we have different stakeholders from different economies, different cultures, different languages, different understanding of technologies in the societies. So inclusion, especially from the consultations part of it, especially when we have the bills coming out in India, whenever there is a bill, since being the coordinator of Youth IGF, we ensure that whenever there’s a public consultation, young people are made aware, and we as a community of young people make sure our comments and inputs are provided to the consultation on the bills. Similarly, the tokenism aspect, there should not be any tokenism. There has to be real participation. and such that the outcomes are incorporated in the actual outcomes. And when we talk about consultation, there has to be mechanisms to ensure that the young people are drawn towards these consultations. The inputs are provided, they are made to understand why it is important to voice themselves. The second thing with respect to legislation that I talk about is contextualized legislation design. This is important because although legislation could be at the national level, but the adaptation of it is from a local level. So it’s important to understand the local disparities that could be with respect to digital access and digital literacy. And this is where I think a lot of cooperation with grassroots youth initiatives would help. Moving forward, the last point, or maybe rather second last if we have time, is that I want to talk about the accountability aspect in the legislation. So when we, you know, working with young people in the last seven years, cyber fraud, radicalization on the internet, misinformation, cyber safety are among some of the concerns that extensively they talk about. So when we are designing these legislations, we have to ensure that the accountability is present in protecting the digital rights of youth. And the last point, not to rush, is to understand the impact of the legislation. This is the impact assessment. The impact studies and how these laws affect young people, their rights, their societies, their access, as well as their opportunities has to be put together to ensure a holistic framework. Thank you.

Keith Andere: So Keewa, youth participation by design, youth engagement by design. Super. Dua, do you wanna?

Duaa Albalawi: Sure thing, thank you so much, Keith. So I really want to start off by saying that from my experience at the Y20 of this year, there is no one and done approach to policymaking, especially when it comes to digital governance, given that technology has been rapidly evolving at an unprecedented rate that none of us has experienced in the past. Now, when it comes to youth, they’re a key stakeholder in this rapid development of technology. And not only should they be involved, but they should be consulted when it comes to steering our policymaking direction. Now, for example, forums like the G20 Youth Summit occur on an annual basis and provide insights on the youth stance globally on very different topics, including digital governance. And if you allow me, I would really like to take this opportunity to highlight two of the youth policies that emerged in the sphere during our negotiations in Brazil this past August. So when it comes to artificial intelligence, and as His Excellency Danza has mentioned, youth are calling on our leaders to build a global ethical taxonomy for the development of AI. And it’s political security and informational implications by creating, one, AI auditing frameworks for fair, accountable, and most importantly, unbiased AI systems. Two, putting measures in place to ensure a fair transition for workers to ensure that no one is going to be left behind. And lastly, putting in place national commissions that analyze the impact of AI and propose national regulatory frameworks. Now, on the other hand, another topic of discussion when it comes to data and privacy, the youth are really calling on leaders to empower citizens when it comes to their relationship to these platforms and the use of their personal. data. Now, this includes developing ethical standards of data management, but most importantly, sovereignty to enable citizens to actively protect their privacy and examine the feasibility of establishing private ownership over each individual’s personal data. Now, when it comes to your question on obstacles of including youth perspectives in digital governance, my answer might be a bit unconventional, but I truly believe one of the biggest obstacles from both sides, the senior stakeholders and the youth, is the gap in communication. From my experience, I’ve observed a very big disconnect in how the youth and members of Parliament and members of government communicate and share these ideas, where youth, and justifiably so, are typically very forthcoming and relentless in their communication, which can be very hard to receive and digest for senior stakeholders. But this is where the responsibility of senior government stakeholders truly lies in mentoring and guiding these passionate youth to polish and fine-tune their demands. Now, I believe our MP, Sahar, has mentioned a few incredible examples of how youth can participate to address some of these key challenges in the digital governance space, so I might not expand too much on that. But another issue that I really wanted to bring to the table is the point on fair compensation for youth participation. Youth participation is not a privilege. It is a God-given right. And youth have incredibly insightful and creative solutions that sometimes are not recognized or compensated for. So I would really like to highlight an approach that emerged from our Y20 deliberations, where youth are calling on leaders to increase and incentivize youth participation in local, regional, and national governments through establishing diverse and, most importantly, paid engagement initiatives, such as youth parliaments and advisory councils, while leveraging and also facilitating maybe public and private partnerships to try and aid this funding and ensure that youth contributions are conserved in their policymaking efforts. Now, of course, I would just like to close on a very positive note and highlight that the session that we’re in today truly showcases a remarkable effort from members of parliament to empower the voices of youth on the global stage, so I just really want to take the opportunity to thank everybody for giving us the stage today. Thank you so much.

Keith Andere: Thank you, Jo. Already we have had very concrete, you know, recommendation and actions and things that are able to move us forward from where we are sitting because somebody was already talking on tokenism, you know, so these are very concrete, you know, actions that you’re already talking to us. So this next session is, for me, what is most exciting because we’ve been doing the talking and they’ve been doing the listening, and so it’s our turn maybe to listen to them, maybe perhaps answer. So we have a few minutes and I want to see how do I balance these few minutes and donate it to the audience in the room. By way of hand, I will invite a round of questions should we have a few which I can see some hands in the room I want to ask that we do the following we just say our name and we go straight to the point if your question can be in 60 characters we will be more happy because that means that more people are going to take the floor oh yes a tweet kind of question of course not the Elon Musk kind of tweet yeah so I see a hand here I see there was a second hand here and there’s a third hand sorry I see three hands okay oh yeah I see this one and then there’s another one okay so we’ll take those forums please say your name and be straight to the point if you have a question to any of the panelists and then we can all answer so that is for you there was second question here

Audience: yes yeah my name is Jose Keja from Ghana African youth IGF first of all I’d like to comment on honorable MPs especially our West African MPs for doing great work in that open door policy but I’d like to ask questions for all the MPs in the room how can we measure that open consultation with the youth? What kind of strategies are in place that can be measured, that can be quantifiable? Thank you very much.

Keith Andere: That is a powerful tweet. We had a question from a gentleman.

Audience: Thank you, Keith. My name is Noa Abdubeki. My question is to MP Sahar. I’m from Egypt as well. I’ve been in this ecosystem, the internet governance system, for a while, but I feel like I grew up watching the parliament plenary sessions on TV, but I feel like as a citizen, I lost connection with the parliament. I was wondering, we have a lot of experts in Egypt in different fields, especially when it comes to tech, but how to build this connection between those experts and the parliament and rebuild this trust and bond against it? I’m Srinath Govindarajan. I’m from India. I’ll keep my question really short. My question across the panel is, is there a cultural resistance for young politicians to be elected in the sense that our voters are less likely to vote for young politicians, and how do we combat that?

Keith Andere: Thank you. We’ll take this first round of questions. Just like the questions, please make your answer suitable.

Sahar Albazar: Okay, so I’m lucky to have two questions here. The first one is about the children and if exposing them on how the parliament works is a violation for childhood. We’re not going to kindergarten. We’re going to the primary age and people in high school. So they are actually in a few years, in two years, will be voting for the parliament. So they need to understand and be more aware. It’s like civic education so that when it’s time to vote, they can understand the process and they vote for the right person. I’m sorry, I didn’t get your name. So thank you for the question. I’m currently actually working on AI governance bill. And we have a lot of Egyptian experts, as you mentioned. And as a parliamentarian, I have to have round tables to discuss. So I always include everyone. It’s inclusive. I have private sector. I have experts. I have international organizations. I have civil society. Everyone should be included. So that’s how we bridge the knowledge and the expertise with the policymaker. So when you produce and introduce a bill, it’s evidence-based. I hope that answers your question.

Keith Andere: Yeah, those are the two questions that were directly to you. I think there was a general question from a comrade from Ghana. that was speaking to all of members of parliament. Honourable speaker, I don’t know whether you want to answer his question. How can we measure open consultation with young people? If there are any strategies.

Dansa Kourouma: That’s why at home, we broadcast parliamentary debates live on social media. Traditionally, the debate was on the radio and TV. But today, in our parliament in Guinea, parliamentary debates in the plenary and in the commission, you can have them on social media. All the social media that you can imagine, you can connect, ask questions. And the other element that seems very important to me is that we need to create opportunities for young people to be represented in parliament. The best way to do that, instead of young people being beneficiaries, they should be actors. That’s why lowering the age of participation of young people in parliament seems to me to be an extremely important opportunity. But there are obstacles. It’s access to funding. The policy, my brother from Ghana, in African countries, is reserved for the rich. So, to say that you are lowering the age of participation of young people and that young people do not have the means to raise questions and campaign, the gap remains. So, in addition to facilitating the access of young people, which is encouraged by the law, we need to set up funding mechanisms to encourage the participation of young people in the decision-making process. The last contribution is on children. In our countries, there is what we call the Parliament of Children. The Parliament of Children, we consult the Parliament of Children in Guinea on all the laws that apply to children. because they are students from 12 to 18 years old who are very bright, who are very critical. So when the Senior Parliament debates on education, on health, we give the floor to the Children’s Parliament, which is represented throughout the country, so that they can give their point of view. Indeed, the involvement of young people as voters is from the age of 18, but it is also necessary to allow a young person of 18 years old who participates in the vote, by choosing, to also be a candidate, because voting is a responsibility. We cannot create a disparity between the participation, the right to vote and the right to be a candidate. So legislation must lead us today to create a harmony between the age of voting and the age of candidacy for elections, in addition to the assistance that can be provided to young people for access to funds. For me, this is extremely important. Because I conclude, technology benefits young people in relation to the political process. You agree with me, in many countries, the Internet has changed the regime. There are bloggers who have changed the course of understanding the history of their country on a political level, thanks to tweets, thanks to videos on YouTube. They have led to the awareness of young people, who make up almost 70% of African populations, to become aware. So it is important that this awareness is well-parameterized, so that it is not used against the stability of our nations. So there is no miracle solution. We must try, by creating all the conditions so that young people can access, and also be safe in relation to information.

Keith Andere: Thank you so much, Honorable Speaker. I see, Tobias, I can now report authoritatively that the room can see you, and they can confirm what I told them earlier. So if you have any additional response, please let me know. I give you a minute.

Tobias Bacherle: First of all, I completely agree with what the honorable colleague just said. In Germany, in certain areas, we have a passive right to vote that’s 16 that goes for the European election and for local elections and in some parts also for state elections and in some local elections, even an active right. So you are able to run when you’re already 16 for local council and that combined with you have councils where young people vote their own councils and have their own budgets in that council. Then I think that gives to a very important part access. And I think access is the most important thing, because knowing in theory whom to write and where to go is great and knowing what hearing to watch and so on. But there is a lot of let’s be honest, a lot of informal ways to reach your parliamentarians, to reach your decision makers, to reach your teams and so on. And to get to know that the best thing is to get involved. And I think to encourage young people in that, it’s incredibly important. And we have in the German Bundestag, we have a children’s commission, a standing committee that’s only focusing and working on topics that concern children. And a colleague of mine that was chairperson of that committee for half a year, it’s always rotating every half a year. And in her six months, she decided to only invite children. So children all over from the country, they’re invited to the German Bundestag to speak there. And I think that was an adaptation of the multistakeholder or is a little adaptation of the multistakeholder process. That is important because long story short, wherever you have an open forum, wherever you have an open process, where people are able to participate when they want. And then on the second step, you reach out to those whom it might concern, who might be willing to actually participate and try to enable them, maybe through some program that gives them funding to travel to wherever you meet and so on, or to have digital formats as well. Thank you for that possibility today, for example. I think to have that kind of connection would be very, very great to see that in more places and see it in more political fields. And I think the IGF is a great opportunity to experience the multistakeholder process, but also to learn from the multistakeholder process. Don’t have closed doors, have as many open doors as possible and have them so wide open that people can actually step in and be willing and feel allowed to speak out. And if young people feel encouraged to do that and get encouraged, and the possibility when it comes to funding as well, because young people we heard that already don’t have that amount of money necessarily, either their parents have or often they don’t. So if we fund them, I think that gives an incredible opportunity to actually get involved and be part of any kind of political process.

Keith Andere: Thank you. It will be unjust to leave you out without a response. I think there was a gentleman’s question that was not responded to. So very quickly, we could respond to that.

Duaa Albalawi: Thank you. Absolutely. Thank you so much, Keith. I think on your question of are voters less likely to vote for young politicians, maybe the response to that is a bit convoluted. But in my opinion, I think a key driver to rallying support as a young politician really lies in the age demographic that you’re targeting. If you’re in a country where the population is mostly represented by youth, then it’s very apparent that youth would like someone from that same demographic to represent them and call for their needs and really address the challenges that they want to bring to the table. However, maybe if you look at countries such as Japan, where most of the demographic is mostly older generations, they might have different considerations and different challenges that need to be kept in mind. But I really think that’s where the youth’s ability to learn and gain credibility and expertise really comes into play because that evens out the playing field. So I hope that answers your question. Maybe I want to move to Ihida and see if she has anything more to say. That’s actually a very good question, and thank you so much for touching on the demographics aspect. But I also feel like in addition to that, there’s a lot of narrative around this, you know, that we have to change. And it’s just not us, but rather it’s so intergenerational that the older generations we expect very strong support in helping us change the direction of this narrative to ensure that people see young people as, which we are, as very skilled, informed and relevant to this generation and the future as well. So a lot of it also relies on narrative. Thank you.

Keith Andere: Thank you so much. So I see we have less than four minutes left. But because we’re all here for tech, I have asked AI how many parliamentarians are in the room, and it says it’s more than those already who are seated here. So I’ve seen a few parliamentarians from AI and senators from national governments and Pan-African and regional parliaments. So I will take the powers, you know, that I have to allow those who are willing one minute, not to make a huge submission like they do in the house, but one minute of intervention. Maybe I’ll give, because I have three minutes, I can give four or 50 seconds each, and then we’ll come to closing. So are there any who want, any takers? So there’s one here, there’s a senator here. See, AI is right. No bias. There’s another senator here. So those are three and we’ll keep it, and four. Okay, so 50 seconds each. If we have a roving mic, please do share to the four honorable members for 50 seconds. Thank you.

Audience: Start counting now. What I’d like to say to the young people, that parliament is a space that has been given a lot of powers to shape everything that happens, literally everything. It decides what education will happen, how health will look like. So young people must know, must become political in order for their issues to be addressed. So if you just abandon it to parliament because it’s an old people’s boring space, that is the reason why you then end up with bad laws. So every young person must be political in order to shape the quality of business that comes out of parliament. I think also I want to encourage the young people. The first time I was elected, I was 26 years old as a senator. I’m serving possibly my second into third term in the Senate of the Republic of Kenya. To build that confidence, be proactive, be conscious of the nation. Just start it from the grassroot where you are, from the village, from the town, from the city, and be part of it. And then finally, we run what we call open governance program. I know you have heard about the OGP, that is where we give what we call legislative integrity, legislative openness, and integrity and transparency. I thank you.

Keith Andere: Thank you, Senator.

Audience: Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Honorable Alha Jimbo from the Gambia and the Pan-African Parliament. What I want to say is exactly what is going on in Guinea, where we have a middle parliament called the National Youth Parliament. We have the same thing in Gambia. It is very good to have, simply because it mirrors the national parliament exactly. Where I sit in parliament in Gambia, that’s the same seat where the young parliamentarian from my constituency also sits. They discuss, they have resolutions, and they have recommendations that they forward to the national parliament. So you see that synergy between the real parliament and the youth parliament. It creates that energy. It actually allows them to see themselves as the future lawmakers of the country. So if you don’t have it, I think it’s good to encourage your parliaments to have such, so that they can see exactly what’s actually happening. You have to be on the table. Don’t allow yourself to be on the menu. Be on the table, know exactly what we are doing, so that when you get there, at any particular time, be it young or old, you are able to do the right things. Thank you. You can see that all the parliamentarians instinctively are standing up to speak. That’s what we do in the parliament. Well, I’m from Nigeria, and I also like to say Nigeria has a youth parliament. Indeed, as I’m a senator, I also have a senator youth that also sits, they also have their own speaker, just like we have the president of the Senate. And second part of it as well, there’s also a gallery that also allows youth to also participate and watch proceedings. And I’m proud to say I started as a student parliamentarian, and I wrote through the ranks, and today I’m a national parliamentarian. The only thing I’d like to emphasize, as we’re emphasizing the responsibility for youth to take more engagement, they must also have responsibility to also maintain the integrity of the country. Countries are not run on social media. Countries also have, I mean, the youth, as they are doing the engagement, as they are on the social media, they must also know that certain things border on national security. So as you want to have more space on the table, that more space on the table also comes with more responsibility. And the conversation will not be complete if you are creating more space on the table without letting them know that being on the table creates responsibility that they also need to be aware of.

Keith Andere: Thank you, honourable members. It seems that you have pressed something because I see two very pressing hands. Maybe they want to challenge that governments are not, you know, run from social media. There was a hand behind there. Is it still up? Yes. So, please make it very short. And then I’ll take the gentleman here.

Audience: Hello? Okay, good afternoon. My name is Matilda Moses Mashauri. Okay, good afternoon. My name is Matilda Moses Mashauri. So my question is, I’ve heard all the explanations. I also want to know what exactly, what strategies we, the youth, should use that will contribute to and lead to the digital transformation journey? What are the key steps and things like that, though? Thank you very much.

Keith Andere: Thank you. There’s a gentleman here. I hope that he will be as brief as the lady behind there.

Audience: Merci beaucoup. Je voudrais faire aussi comme collègue parlementaire. Je suis Alpha Abdoulaye Diallo, je suis président de la commission des affaires économiques et développement durable du Parlement Guénin. Je voudrais féliciter les panélistes et aussi remercier le président du Parlement Guénin pour l’opportunité qu’il nous a offert d’être à ce forum. Une expérience que je voudrais ajouter par rapport aux jeunes, c’est qu’il ne faut pas se limiter seulement au Parlement des jeunes et aux sénateurs jeunes. En République de Guinée, nous avons une expérience, ce qu’on appelle les conseils locaux des jeunes au niveau des communes. Dans les communes rurales et dans les communes urbaines, nous avons installé ce qu’on appelle les conseils locaux des jeunes. Et à partir de déjà au niveau de la commune, ils commencent à apprendre la vie de la cité, c’est-à-dire à participer à la prise de décision dans les communes et dans les quartiers. Et ensuite, ils vont progresser vers le conseil, disons le Parlement des jeunes et les sénateurs de jeunes. Donc je pense que la prise de décision d’abord doit commencer au niveau des communes. Ça permet aux jeunes de se socialiser au niveau de leur quartier, au niveau de leur commune, mais aussi de réduire beaucoup la dépendance vis-à-vis des technologies. Je vous remercie.

Keith Andere: Thank you so much. Can you make it 10 seconds? Okay, 20. 25.

Audience: Thank you, sir. Thank you to everyone. Quickly, you know, the new generation, I believe, they are not like our generation. They were raised with technology. I remember my son, he was two or three years. I’m professor of computer science. He locked my iPhone. I couldn’t open it. Two, three, really. So, whenever we come to them, even when they talk in the same room, as you know, they use, even they don’t talk, they use technology to, right? So, we cannot, my point is, we cannot always say, no, no, we have to guard them, we have to do this. Of course, we have to protect them, help them with laws and regulations, but doesn’t, we should not, they think we are, I’m sorry, we are ignorant in technology. Yeah, really. So, when I talk to my kids, they say, please stay away, you know, we know what we do. So, always you have to be open up, don’t think, okay, they are ignorant, they know nothing about this. They were raised with technology. They know almost everything better than us. So, we need to protect them. We need to help them, educate them, but also, what can I say? We have to be flexible because they will use technology in all aspects of their lives, despite our will.

Keith Andere: Thank you very much. Thank you so much. You know, you mentioned something, and it reminds me of one parent who was talking about how they were monitoring their children’s communication, and this is a Kenyan parent. And so, when they went to WhatsApp, they found that the child was, you know, using French to speak to other people because they’re using chat GPT and conversing in French. So, literally, the parent didn’t know what to do. But in 30 seconds, in the tutable fashion, I would like us to make very powerful closing remarks. If they forgot everything you said, this is your time. Thank you. So, we’ll start to my extreme right.

Sahar Albazar: Well, thank you again. I think I will underscore what Dua’a said, that the participation of young people is not a privilege. And I would add, it’s not a symbolic act. It’s a necessity for sustainable development and sustainable progress. Because whether we engage young people in structured forums or mentorship programs or directly in the policymaking process, they help us in having inclusive policies and bills and secure the innovative process and ideas. Lastly, I want to thank Saudi Shura Council for hosting us and doing great work in organizing this event. And also IGF for putting the effort and giving us the opportunity to be with the youth in the same room, which for us, it’s very energetic and very inspiring. So thank you so much. Thank you, everyone.

Keith Andere: Thank you. You’ve already met my closing remarks, but thank you. Yes.

Ihita Gangavarapu: All right. So I have four points. The first one is that we need to institutionalize youth participation through consultative bodies, structured forums, and mentorship so that we can make informed decisions and impactful decisions alongside all of you. Point two, that there are certain systemic barriers that, for example, around both digital and cultural, that if we can address, we can also participate. Point three, one something that was very important mentioned earlier was that you should treat young people as partners and not beneficiaries when it comes to policymaking. And last, one of the points that I’ve taken from the floor is that we need to be where we want to see a change. So we need to be at the table, and we are working towards it as young people, but we need your support. Thank you.

Duaa Albalawi: I’m going to keep this very short and sweet. I think we live in very strange times, and things are rapidly changing day in and day out. And the youth’s effort is absolutely crucial to building the future that we would like to experience tomorrow. So I guess that’s it. is my message to all the youth here in the room. Stay hungry. Stay passionate. Do not get discouraged. Rome was not built in a day. And it is very important for us to continue this fight towards shaping our own digital future. Thank you so much. Thank you.

Dansa Kourouma: Thank you, Mr. Moderator. I would like to conclude with two words. The first word is participation. And the second is responsibility. Why participation? Because simply bringing a politicized society is not the solution. All citizens are not obliged to be politicized. And an extremely politicized society also has consequences on social and economic progress. No, we need enlightened citizens who participate without complacency. So, the struggle for solutions is the right to petition, a popular veto that allows young people, through a certain number of signatures, to put the Parliament before its responsibilities. Because, Madam, the Parliament must not have a right to live or die over the people. The Parliament represents the people. These actions must be controlled by the citizens. So, I propose to those who do not have the popular veto in their legislation and in their constitution, that citizens, especially young people, must be given the opportunity to gather a certain number of signatures and express their concerns before the Parliament, and that the Parliament be obliged to consider the concerns and proposals of the young people. That is participation. The second element is responsibility. Yes, the Internet, youth were born with the Internet, they grew up with the Internet, but we were not born with responsibility, and we did not grow up with responsibility. Responsibility is acquired by education. So, I plead for a responsible digital education, so that youth can participate and avoid that young people publish on social networks 3D images of a protected military site, with terrorism, with everything that constitutes a threat today to national security.

Keith Andere: Thank you so much, Honourable Speaker, Honourable Tobias, you are the far on my far left. That’s why you’re coming last, not because you’re online.

Tobias Bacherle: No worries. Thank you. Thank you very much. I think, first of all, just see that young people and or it’s their future. It’s our future. Include young people and not as a game, but as people and voters and citizens that speak, think and engage on their own future. And that will be around longer than everyone who is older. And I think that’s important to see and to acknowledge. And the second thing is acknowledge the risks of digital transformation and digital tools. Yes, but embrace the chances, forge them, shape the developments and enable people and young people especially to, well, enable their self-sovereign digital journey and put that in the middle of policymaking. The young people and the people in general, the humans in the middle of our digital policies. I think then we can enable them, as I said, to to make their journey and to engage and to participate.

Keith Andere: Thank you so much, Honourable Tobias. We are three minutes into time. And so as we close, I would like to let the parliamentarians in the room know that a draft, an email has been sent to you that has the draft outcome. Please look at it and give in your comments for the parliamentary track on your emails. We’ll be happy to receive that feedback as early as possible to allow the secretariat and colleagues close on that. Lastly, I just want to thank again, you know, the. Saudi government and all the youth organisers and NADUA was our able coordinator and point person for all the young people from the host government as well as the secretariat. Thank you so much for ensuring that young people have an opportunity to interact with the parliamentarians and of course the parliamentarians, whether it was on your own accord or through the parliament. We hope that we can continue to engage with you. We are inviting you tomorrow at room number six, where the Kenyan delegation will be having a roundtable with members of parliament, so you’re welcome to come. As we close, I was your moderator, Keith Andere, until next time, thank you so much.

Agreement Points

Increase youth participation in politics and policymaking

speakers

Sahar Albazar

Dansa Kourouma

Tobias Bacherle

Ihita Gangavarapu

Duaa Albalawi

arguments

Lower voting and candidacy age to increase youth representation

Create youth parliaments and councils to engage young people

Provide funding and resources to enable youth political participation

Treat youth as partners, not just beneficiaries, in policymaking

Youth participation is a necessity, not a privilege

summary

All speakers agreed on the importance of increasing youth participation in politics and policymaking through various means such as lowering voting ages, creating youth councils, and providing resources for engagement.

Leverage digital tools for youth engagement

speakers

Dansa Kourouma

Tobias Bacherle

arguments

Broadcast parliamentary debates on social media platforms

Use social media and digital tools to engage youth in political communication

summary

Both speakers emphasized the importance of using digital platforms and social media to engage young people in political processes and increase transparency.

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized the importance of protecting digital rights and data privacy for young people and citizens in general.

speakers

Ihita Gangavarapu

Duaa Albalawi

arguments

Ensure accountability in protecting digital rights of youth

Empower citizens to protect their data privacy and ownership

Both speakers stressed the need for educating young people about responsible digital citizenship and the potential national security implications of their online activities.

speakers

Dansa Kourouma

Unknown speaker

arguments

Educate youth on responsible use of technology and social media

Balance digital engagement with awareness of national security concerns

Unexpected Consensus

Recognition of youth expertise in technology

speakers

Dansa Kourouma

Unknown speaker

arguments

Educate youth on responsible use of technology and social media

Recognize youth expertise with technology while still providing guidance

explanation

Despite emphasizing the need for guidance and education, both speakers acknowledged the advanced technological skills of young people, which is somewhat unexpected given the traditional view of older generations as more knowledgeable.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The main areas of agreement centered around increasing youth participation in politics, leveraging digital tools for engagement, protecting digital rights, and balancing technological expertise with responsible use.

Consensus level

There was a high level of consensus among speakers on the importance of youth involvement in political processes and digital governance. This strong agreement suggests a growing recognition of the need to empower young people in shaping their digital future, which could lead to more youth-focused policies and initiatives in digital governance.

Different Viewpoints

Approach to youth engagement in politics

speakers

Sahar Albazar

Dansa Kourouma

arguments

Lower voting and candidacy age to increase youth representation

Create youth parliaments and councils to engage young people

summary

While both speakers advocate for increased youth participation, Albazar focuses on lowering age restrictions for voting and candidacy, while Kourouma emphasizes creating separate youth parliaments and councils.

Unexpected Differences

Approach to youth expertise in technology

speakers

Unknown speaker

Dansa Kourouma

arguments

Recognize youth expertise with technology while still providing guidance

Educate youth on responsible use of technology and social media

explanation

While most speakers emphasized empowering youth through technology, there was an unexpected difference in how youth expertise is viewed. The unknown speaker acknowledges youth’s advanced technological skills, while Kourouma focuses more on the need to educate youth on responsible use, implying a potential gap in their understanding of risks.

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement centered around the specific methods for engaging youth in politics, the balance between leveraging digital tools and ensuring responsible use, and the perception of youth expertise in technology.

difference_level

The level of disagreement among speakers was relatively low, with most differences being in approach rather than fundamental goals. This suggests a general consensus on the importance of youth engagement in digital governance, but varied perspectives on implementation strategies. These differences could lead to a more comprehensive approach if integrated effectively, but may also result in challenges when prioritizing specific policies or initiatives.

Partial Agreements

Both speakers agree on the importance of using digital platforms to engage youth, but Kourouma emphasizes the need for responsible use and education about potential risks, while Bacherle focuses more on leveraging these tools for engagement.

speakers

Tobias Bacherle

Dansa Kourouma

arguments

Use social media and digital tools to engage youth in political communication

Broadcast parliamentary debates on social media platforms

Educate youth on responsible use of technology and social media

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized the importance of protecting digital rights and data privacy for young people and citizens in general.

speakers

Ihita Gangavarapu

Duaa Albalawi

arguments

Ensure accountability in protecting digital rights of youth

Empower citizens to protect their data privacy and ownership

Both speakers stressed the need for educating young people about responsible digital citizenship and the potential national security implications of their online activities.

speakers

Dansa Kourouma

Unknown speaker

arguments

Educate youth on responsible use of technology and social media

Balance digital engagement with awareness of national security concerns

Key Takeaways

Youth participation in politics and policymaking is crucial for sustainable development and progress

Digital governance needs to balance embracing opportunities with addressing risks

There is a need to bridge the gap between youth and policymakers through various engagement mechanisms

Responsible digital citizenship education is important for youth

Resolutions and Action Items

Lower voting and candidacy ages to increase youth political participation

Create youth parliaments and councils at local and national levels

Provide funding and resources to enable youth political engagement

Institutionalize youth consultation in legislative processes

Broadcast parliamentary debates on social media platforms

Develop global ethical framework for AI development and regulation

Empower citizens to protect their data privacy and ownership

Unresolved Issues

How to measure the effectiveness of youth consultation in policymaking

How to address cultural resistance to electing young politicians

How to balance youth digital engagement with national security concerns

Specific mechanisms for compensating youth for their participation and contributions

Suggested Compromises

Treat youth as partners in policymaking while still providing guidance and education on responsible engagement

Embrace youth expertise with technology while still addressing potential risks and teaching responsible use

Balance politicization of youth with focus on creating informed, responsible citizens

Do you agree with me that modernity, the race towards innovation and modernity, cannot be decided by the government alone? It is necessary for parliaments and parliamentarians to be convinced that modernity should not be the antipode of traditional values, of human values.

speaker

Dansa Kourouma

reason

This comment challenges the notion that technological progress should be pursued without consideration for cultural values and human factors. It emphasizes the role of parliaments in balancing innovation with traditional values.

impact

This set the tone for much of the subsequent discussion about the need for responsible governance of technology and AI, considering both progress and human values.

Young people are not only the future but they are our active contributors and in our present time for policies and legislations

speaker

Sahar Albazar

reason

This comment reframes the common perception of youth as solely future leaders, emphasizing their current importance and ability to contribute.

impact

It shifted the conversation towards concrete ways to involve youth in current policy-making, leading to discussion of various youth engagement initiatives.

We grew up with mobile phones, with smartphones, and so on. When I was, I think, 12, the iPhone was introduced. So many things that seem to be a change for all the colleagues, because they witnessed how media and media usage has changed, is for us rather something that we are completely used to

speaker

Tobias Bacherle

reason

This comment highlights the generational divide in understanding and using technology, emphasizing why youth perspectives are crucial in tech policy.

impact

It led to further discussion about the unique insights young people can bring to digital governance and the importance of their involvement.

Youth participation is not a privilege. It is a God-given right. And youth have incredibly insightful and creative solutions that sometimes are not recognized or compensated for.

speaker

Duaa Albalawi

reason

This comment forcefully asserts the importance of youth participation and challenges the notion that it’s optional or a favor to young people.

impact

It sparked discussion about the need for fair compensation and recognition of youth contributions, shifting the conversation towards more concrete ways to empower youth participation.

Countries are not run on social media. Countries also have, I mean, the youth, as they are doing the engagement, as they are on the social media, they must also know that certain things border on national security.

speaker

Unnamed Nigerian Senator

reason

This comment introduces a note of caution about the limits of digital engagement and the responsibilities that come with increased youth participation.

impact

It added complexity to the discussion, balancing enthusiasm for youth involvement with considerations of national security and responsible engagement.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by moving it from general statements about youth importance to more nuanced considerations of how to practically involve youth in governance while balancing concerns like cultural values, security, and responsible use of technology. The discussion evolved to consider both the unique perspectives youth can bring and the responsibilities that come with increased participation. This led to a more comprehensive dialogue about the role of youth in digital governance and policy-making.

How can we measure open consultation with youth?

speaker

Jose Keja from Ghana

explanation

This question addresses the need for quantifiable strategies to assess youth engagement in policy-making processes.

How to build connection between tech experts and the parliament and rebuild trust and bond?

speaker

Noa Abdubeki from Egypt

explanation

This highlights the need to bridge the gap between technical expertise and legislative processes in the digital governance sphere.

Is there a cultural resistance for young politicians to be elected? Are voters less likely to vote for young politicians, and how do we combat that?

speaker

Srinath Govindarajan from India

explanation

This question addresses potential barriers to youth participation in formal political processes and how to overcome them.

What strategies should youth use that will contribute to and lead to the digital transformation journey?

speaker

Matilda Moses Mashauri

explanation

This question seeks practical guidance for youth to actively participate in and shape digital transformation processes.

Summary

This transcript covers the closing session of the 19th Internet Governance Forum (IGF) held in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. The discussion centered on reflecting on the forum’s achievements and outlining future directions for internet governance.

Vint Cerf, chair of the IGF leadership panel, emphasized the need for the IGF to earn permanent status within the UN structure by producing more concrete outputs. He suggested revising key documents and developing metrics to assess internet utility and the implementation of the Global Digital Compact.

Olaf Kolkman from the Internet Society highlighted the importance of multi-stakeholderism in internet governance, praising the IGF’s role in facilitating global discussions and local actions. He stressed the need for an inclusive WSIS review process.

Dr. Angela Sulemana, a medical doctor from Ghana, shared her perspective on the impact of digital technologies in healthcare and emphasized the importance of including diverse voices in shaping the digital future.

Dr. Latifa Al-Abdulkarim outlined five key actions for parliamentarians to take in shaping the digital future, including collaboration, investment in digital capacity, fostering inclusivity, embracing flexibility in lawmaking, and providing oversight.

The discussion also included remarks from Juan Fernández of Cuba, who emphasized the need to address digital inequalities between developed and developing countries. The Norwegian ambassador, Kjersti Tromsdal, invited participants to the next IGF in Oslo in 2025.

The session concluded with a video message from Li Junhua, UN Under-Secretary-General, who reflected on the IGF’s evolution and its alignment with WSIS principles. He emphasized the continued relevance of these principles in addressing current digital challenges and called for ongoing engagement in shaping an inclusive digital future.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– Strengthening the IGF’s status and funding within the UN structure

– Preparing for WSIS+20 review and implementing the Global Digital Compact

– Importance of multi-stakeholderism and inclusive participation in Internet governance

– Addressing the digital divide and ensuring equitable access to technology

– Looking ahead to IGF 2025 in Norway and building on progress made

Overall purpose:

The purpose of this closing session was to reflect on the outcomes of IGF 2024, highlight key takeaways and priorities for the future of Internet governance, and transition to the next IGF in 2025.

Tone:

The overall tone was positive and forward-looking. Speakers expressed gratitude to the hosts and participants, emphasized the importance of collaboration, and conveyed optimism about the future of the IGF and its role in shaping digital policy. There was also a sense of urgency about addressing ongoing challenges and preparing for upcoming milestones like WSIS+20.

Speakers

Speakers from the provided list:

– Chengetai Masango: Moderator/host of the session

– Vint Cerf: Chair of the IGF leadership panel

– Olaf Kolkman: Principal Internet Technology Policy and Advocacy Director at ISOC

– Angela Sulemana: Medical Doctor from the Tamil Teaching Hospital in Ghana

– Latifa Al-Abdulkarim: Member of the Shura Council, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

– Juan Fernández: Senior Advisor, Ministry of Communications of the Republic of Cuba

– Kjersti Tromsdal: Ambassador of the Kingdom of Norway to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

– Li Junhua: Undersecretary General of the Economic and Social Affairs, UNDESA

Additional speakers:

– Mieke Van Heesewijk: Deputy Director of SIDN Funds (mentioned but did not speak)

Revised Summary of the 19th Internet Governance Forum (IGF) Closing Session

The closing session of the 19th Internet Governance Forum (IGF) in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, brought together key figures in internet governance to reflect on the forum’s achievements and chart the course for its future. The discussion centered on several critical themes, including strengthening the IGF’s role, addressing digital inequalities, and navigating the challenges posed by emerging technologies.

Opening Remarks and Video Presentations

The session began with video presentations from the host country and Li Junhua, UN Under-Secretary-General for Economic and Social Affairs. Li Junhua emphasized the continued relevance of WSIS principles in addressing current digital challenges and the importance of considering ethical implications in emerging technologies.

IGF’s Future and Structure

Vint Cerf, chair of the IGF leadership panel, set an ambitious tone for the forum’s future by advocating for permanent status within the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA) structure. This proposal aims to secure more stable funding and enhance the IGF’s influence. Cerf emphasized the need for the IGF to justify this elevated status by producing more concrete outputs from its meetings and activities.

Cerf suggested several improvements for the IGF, including:

1. Revisiting and revising key documents such as ‘The Internet We Want’ to include concrete metrics and milestones

2. Creating a new document titled “The IGF We Need” to outline necessary improvements

3. Developing metrics to assess internet utility and the implementation of the Global Digital Compact

4. Preparing quickly for IGF 2025 in Oslo

Olaf Kolkman from the Internet Society echoed the importance of the IGF as a primary platform for internet governance discussions. He praised the IGF’s role in facilitating global discussions and local actions through national and regional IGFs. Kolkman emphasized the need for self-assessment and continuous improvement of IGF processes to create tangible benefits for all stakeholders.

Multi-stakeholder Approach and Inclusivity

A recurring theme throughout the session was the critical importance of multi-stakeholderism in internet governance. Speakers unanimously agreed on the need for inclusive dialogue and diverse stakeholder involvement in policymaking.

Dr. Angela Sulemana, a medical doctor from Ghana, provided a unique perspective on the impact of digital technologies in healthcare. She shared her personal experience of how digital tools have transformed her medical practice, emphasizing the importance of including health professionals in digital discussions. Dr. Sulemana stressed the need for diverse voices, particularly from young professionals and various sectors, in shaping the digital future.

Dr. Latifa al-Abdul Karim outlined five key actions for parliamentarians to take in shaping the digital future:

1. Collaboration with diverse stakeholders

2. Investment in digital capacity within parliaments

3. Fostering inclusivity in legislative initiatives

4. Embracing flexibility in lawmaking

5. Providing oversight on digital governance issues

She also emphasized the need for policies that protect children, safeguard the environment, and ensure safety as digital citizens.

Digital Inclusion and Development

Addressing the digital divide and ensuring equitable access to technology emerged as a crucial concern. Juan Fernández of Cuba emphasized the need to address digital inequalities between developed and developing countries, calling for increased efforts to maximize the positive impact of the internet in developing nations. He also highlighted the negative impact of unilateral measures that don’t align with the UN Charter on developing countries.

Emerging Technologies and Governance Challenges

The rapid advancement of technology presents new governance challenges that the IGF must address. Dr. Latifa al-Abdul Karim highlighted the need to tackle AI governance challenges and called for the implementation of anticipatory governance to address future technological shifts, including emerging fields like quantum computing and neurocomputing.

Global Digital Cooperation

The implementation of the Global Digital Compact emerged as a key focus area for future IGF efforts. The importance of international cooperation in digital governance was emphasized by several speakers, including Juan Fernández and Kjersti Tromsdal, the Norwegian ambassador.

Looking Ahead to IGF 2025

Kjersti Tromsdal invited participants to the next IGF in Oslo in June 2025, underscoring the continuity of the forum’s work and the ongoing commitment to strengthening diversity and collaboration in digital governance. A video was shown welcoming participants to IGF 2025, and attendees were advised to book hotels early due to limited capacity.

Conclusion

Chengetai Masango provided closing remarks, noting that the Riyadh IGF messages and other outcome documents would be made available on the web. The overall tone of the session was positive and forward-looking, with speakers expressing gratitude to the hosts and participants, emphasizing the importance of collaboration, and conveying optimism about the future of the IGF and its role in shaping digital policy.

Key takeaways include:

1. The push for permanent status for the IGF within the UN structure

2. The need for more concrete outputs from IGF meetings and activities

3. The critical importance of multi-stakeholder collaboration and inclusivity

4. The ongoing priority of digital inclusion and addressing the digital divide

5. The necessity of addressing governance challenges posed by emerging technologies

6. The focus on global digital cooperation and implementation of the Global Digital Compact

As the IGF community looks ahead to the 2025 forum in Oslo and the WSIS+20 review, there is a clear emphasis on translating discussions into actionable outcomes. However, several challenges remain, including specific mechanisms for achieving permanent IGF status within the UN, concrete plans for increasing IGF outputs, detailed strategies for addressing the digital divide, and specific approaches to AI governance and regulation. These areas will likely form the basis for ongoing discussions and work in the lead-up to IGF 2025 and beyond.

Chengetai Masango: So now we come to the last session, which is the closing session of this great IGF. And I’ll just wait until we see our first speaker on the screen. Mr. Vint Cerf, the chair of the leadership panel, is going to be our first speaker. Thank you very much. So I would like to introduce Mr. Vint Cerf, the chair of the IGF leadership panel, who is going to be our first speaker for the closing session. Thank you very much. Vint, please take it away.

Vint Cerf: Thank you so much, Chengetai, and once more, thank you to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia for an extraordinary hosting of this 19th Internet Governance Forum. I’m hearing a little bit of audio showing up unexpectedly. Based on the discussions among the leadership panel, the MAG, and in the IGF 2024 sessions, I conclude that our objective in the WSIS plus 20 should be permanent status for the IGF within the UN DESA structure. I would also include that the main budget for funding be part of the normal UN practice that the secretariat be supported at the $3 million a year level. To earn this outcome, the IGF and the NRIs must put forward plans for more concrete outputs from the annual and the intersessional meetings. We must earn this enhanced status. UNESCO has proposed a revised set of Internet universality indicators, and these measures might be taken through the NRIs and summarized and reported at the annual IGF. We should look for other metrics of Internet utility. across countries and user groups. The Internet We Want document should be revisited and revised to include concrete metrics and milestones for Internet utility. It’s intended to be a living document, adapting to new applications and needs as the Internet and its applications continue to evolve. We could include in this work metrics for assessing the implementations of the Global Digital Compact, highlighting successes and opportunities for improvement. We should consider preparing another living document, which we might title the IGF We Need, to summarize recommendations for changes and improvements in IGF and NRI execution. Annual review of such a document would be beneficial for informing the IGF and NRI organizers of actions that can be taken to facilitate useful outputs from our efforts. We must prepare quickly for IGF 2025 as it takes place in June in Oslo. Our focus should not only be preparation for WSIS Plus 20, but it should get serious attention in the run-up to and during IGF 2025. WSIS Plus 20 is a major opportunity to examine IGF’s purpose and practices that have evolved over the 20 years since 2006. The collective experience of the participants in IGF and the NRIs is deep and broad and needs to be distilled in forms that others can use for action. Finally, we should not imagine that IGFs can solve all problems. We may be able to identify and characterize them and even make recommendations for solutions, but we should work to deliver these observations to other institutions in the global ecosystem that have capacity and authority to address the problems and the opportunities we have identified. Thank you so much, Chengitai, for the opportunity to intervene. Now back to you.

Chengetai Masango: Okay, yes, thank you very much, Vin. Our next speaker is Ms. Micah Van Heusoek, Deputy Director of SIDN Funds. Please come to the stage. All right, we’ll go to our next speaker then. Dr. Angela Suleimani, Medical Doctor from the Tamil Teaching Hospital in Ghana. Okay, this is interesting. Then I would like to call on Mr. Olof Kalkman, Principal Internet Technology Policy and Advocacy Director at ISOC. I might want to use the microphone.

Olaf Kolkman: Thank you. It’s a little bit closer to my mouth. Excellencies, distinguished delegates, my name is Olof Kalkman. I’m Principal at the Internet Society. I’ve been contributing to the development of the Internet for two and a half decades. This Internet Governance Forum takes place during a very particular moment. The ink on the Global Digital Compact has not dried yet. The pencils are being sharpened for the review of the implementation of the outcomes of the World Summit of the Information Society. As you all know, the IGF is the forum that allows relevant voices to share ideas, shape norms, iron out solutions, address concerns, and take approaches that benefit people no matter where they are and who they are. We are happy to see that the Global Digital Compact recognizes the IGF as the primary multi-stakeholder process platform for discussion of Internet governance issues. However, the IGF is not the only thing that the WSIS has established. WSIS, in addition to defining a set of concrete action lines, acknowledges that multi-stakeholderism, a way of collaborative governance, leads to positive and concrete actions. I actually think of this as a flywheel. Good ideas and approaches are tested at the local level, shared at national and regional IGFs, and lead to inspirations and maybe even informal consensus at the global IGF. Then, these global views percolate downwards to the local level, where people apply them locally while thinking globally. The national and regional IGFs are the cogs of this flywheel. They allow good ideas to bubble up from national to regional to global level, and they enable us to act local while thinking global. We have to remember that multi-stakeholderism is more than just talking. It’s about taking responsibility, fulfilling those action lines. And I know that within the technical community, there are many organizations that work passionately towards connecting people to the Internet, either by funding or sharing their knowledge or build capacity in other ways. At the Internet Society, we have empowered communities to get online and grow their digital literacy so they maintain agency in the digital world. Since 2019, we have invested in projects over 120 countries that are delivering on the WSIS Action Lines. We and other technical community organizations help technical and academic communities to organize themselves and build capacity and skills and have agency. In addition, we built new networks that are so much needed to get stuff done. While connecting to the internet, these communities work within their local governments at municipal level, at regional and national level, often with regulators to achieve their goals. We have seen this model produce results, with people now being connected in the highest speaks from the Himalaya to connecting the most underserved students to their schools in Jacksonville, Florida. The model works from the Canadian Arctic to the Colombian jungle. This, my friends, that’s multistakeholderism in action. Various stakeholder groups getting things done, each within their own role, with their own agency, but in collaboration and in coordination. It’s a model that works, and therefore the Internet Society continues to financially and practically support the IGF at all levels. In 2024 alone, we have supported 67 IGFs, schools of internet governance, and supported youth participation, all that with over half a million dollars U.S. currency, simply because we believe this model to be effective. We put our money where our mouth is. But back to this moment, this peculiar moment after the Global Digital Compact and the WSIS review ahead. Remember, the WSIS Review is a review, and we, collectively, should review which additional actions are needed to address the WSIS action lines and achieve the GDC objectives. We must assess how and where we can evolve the existing processes to make them better and understand where we can apply self-learning to create tangible benefits for all. In order to self-learn, we, all stakeholders, need to be part of the self-assessment itself, so that we collectively grow our approach to Internet governance and digital cooperation. That’s why we call on those that will co-facilitate the WSIS process to make the review inclusive and to not mistake multilateralism with multistakeholderism. The Internet is for everyone, and everyone must have a voice in shaping its future. Thank you very much.

Chengetai Masango: Next I would like to call on Dr. Angela Sulumana from the Tamil Teaching Hospital, Ghana.

Angela Sulemana: Assalamu alaikum, bonjour a tous, hola a todos, esteemed delegates, distinguished guests. My name is Dr. Angela Sulumana. at the Thamaly Teaching Hospital in the northern region of Ghana, currently working in the Department of Surgery and I’m part of Ghana SIG. I stand before you today at the closing ceremony of the 19th IGF hosted by the governments of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in Riyadh. I am filled with profound sense of gratitude and emotions, and it’s an honor to address you all as member of the youth cohort in this prestigious gathering. You’re probably wondering what a medical doctor is doing here. I get that a lot. Let me tell you what this means to me. This forum and this secretariat enabled me to, for the very first time, I left my homeland Ghana to be in Addis Ababa for the Africa IGF. What a privilege. Now thinking about my life in Ghana, my hospital, my region, one experience stands out. A 15-year-old patient of mine, after morning reviews, asked, Dr. Angela, could you have me do a TikTok trend with you? Could you do this latest trend with me? I smiled because this patient’s CT scan wasn’t even ready for the electric surgery. But then I thought to myself, I said that, but at least social media at this point is mentally helping her in terms of joy and satisfaction. Though she had an upcoming surgery, but she had the solace in social media, and she was comforted. Maybe if you had AI algorithms that could analyze the MRIs, the CT scans, this could have helped accelerate the process. But reality for some people, it’s a bit tricky here. I’ve come to understand that in building our multistakeholder digital future, we cannot leave the health sector and health professionals out of this conversation. And I’m proud to be part of this forum. I stand before you just not as a delegate from the youth cohort, but as a voice representing the hopes, the aspirations, and the concerns of young people around the world. Over the past few days, we have engaged in meaningful dialogue and shared valuable insights on the present issues of our digital landscape. And we’ve explored topics ranging from AI and trust to human rights and sustainability. Digital is indeed impacting our lives in all fronts. However, as we reflect on our conversations, we must acknowledge the challenges that persist. Many young people still face barriers to accessing Internet, including a lack of infrastructures, affordability, digital literacy. This digital divide is not merely statistics. It represents real lives and missed opportunities. It is imperative that we work together to ensure that the youth have the chance to participate fully in the increasingly digital world. As youth delegates, we are not just passive observers, no. We are active participants in shaping the youth and the future of the Internet. As we close the 19th United Nations Internet Governance Forum, together with my young colleagues and friends, I spend wonderful five days with, and I want to say a big thank you to the governments of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the United Nations, and its IGF Secretariat, organizers, speakers, donors, sponsors, and all participants for cooperating and your support. I will say that as a medical doctor, my work is to save lives. The internet is a life-changing and life-saving tool and the IGF is the operating room where all experts join hands to save our collective future. Thank you Anja, thank you Celine, thank you Fifi, my mentor, for the great opportunity into this year’s Internet Forum and I believe there are more medical professionals who continue to get the opportunity to deliver and enjoy the internet we want in 2025. Happy New Year, As-salamu alaykum, thank you very much.

Chengetai Masango: And next I have the honor to call upon Dr. Latifa al-Abdul Karim, member of the Shura Council, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, who worked tirelessly for our parliamentary track. Thank you very much.

Latifa Al-Abdulkarim: As-salamu alaykum. As-salamu alaykum. Is it working? Perfect. Thanks so much. Excellencies, esteemed parliamentarians, distinguished multi-stakeholders, participants both in person and online, ladies and gentlemen, online, ladies and gentlemen, thank you so much. Thank you for your presence here, thank your insightful questions and your contributions to this important dialogue. These collaborative efforts underscore our central role as digital citizens, we are all at the end digital citizens, and protecting our humanity. in this rapidly evolving digital world. This year has been significant for the IGF parliamentary track in specific with an increased number of parliamentarians actively participating in shaping the various sessions discussions. As we are closing today, I see five actions that parliamentarians should take to shape and impact the digital future by 2025. These actions will definitely will help in paving the way to govern the digital world responsibly, inclusively, and sustainably. Number one, collaborate, collaborate, collaborate. Participate actively in ongoing global discussions about the governance of digital technologies with a human central approach. This is not just only about policy, but also about shaping the future of our digital world. Mark your calendars now. It is not only the global IGF in Norway in June 2025, but the IGF parliamentary track has also introduced good practices to others where they have all invited you to other global events or well-known global events, the AI for Good Summit, the WSIS review meetings, both in July 2025, and the UNESCO Global Forum on AI Ethics, which is going to be in June 2025, so we have a rich summer. Nevertheless, don’t wait to be invited. I highly recommend that the inter-parliamentary union together with the UN to compile a list of relevant global events and training programs to ensure parliamentarians are actively involved in these. conversations. Number two, invest into the future. Build your roadmap to enhance digital capacity and competencies within your Parliament, including capacity of the parliamentarians themselves or the Parliament’s administration team and the institutions of the Parliament. This is not just about training funds. Don’t wait for funds also. It’s about leveraging free resources, promoting knowledge exchanges and creating a culture of continuous learning. Number three, foster inclusivity. The digital world is not just for the tech community. There is always this misunderstanding. Invite parliamentarians from diverse committees to think together. Invite regional and sub-regional parliaments to work together to close this connectivity gap. Open your Parliament doors to stakeholders from academia, from private sector, entrepreneurs, youth and civil societies. Their perspectives are essential in crafting the legislative initiatives. Number four, embrace flexibility, agility, harmonizations and interoperability. Those are the key principles for those innovative regulations to be embedded in our lawmaking processes. Explore opportunities for creating common regulatory frameworks and interoperable legislations that work across national borders. We must work together to close this governance gap this time. Action on AI is needed. not just the AI Act. We must push for policies that encourage brain exchange rather than brain drain. At the same time, we must ensure that our policies protect children, safeguards the environment, and ensure our safety as digital citizens. Access to data must be universal. With data sets available in all languages to promote equity, this is a principle that we should actively advocate for. Implementing anticipatory governance to address the future shifts in technology, including emerging fields like the quantum computing and neurocomputing, to ensure that we are also prepared for the next frontier. Number five, oversight. This is our job. It’s now our responsibility as parliamentarians to work in alignment with executive bodies to prevent any governance gap, whether in AI and data or different sectors, like what we have just heard from the medical fields, ensuring that the digital ecosystem is governed in a way that reflects a global consensus and shared values. And translates, of course, the objectives, principles, and commitment outlines in the Global Digital Compact into practical actions. Finally, I would like to extend my heartfelt congratulations to all those who were involved in organizing this event. Of course, the UN IGF secretariat team. Celine, who was all the time with us, together with Andy from the IBU, and co-organizing the parliamentary track, the Ministry of IT, the Ministry of Communication and IT, and the Digital Governance Government. authority, they were doing all this hard efforts to make sure that everyone is here, welcomed, and feel home, and like making sure that everything is fully occupied for you. And in my final word, I wish the Norwegian Parliament all the best in hosting the next IDF parliamentary track in 2025, and looking forward for your gathering in just six months. Thank you so much, and shukran.

Chengetai Masango: Thank you very much. The next speaker is Mr Juan Fernandez, Senior Advisor, Ministry of Communications of the Republic of Cuba.

Juan Fernandez: I’m going to speak in Spanish, so put your . . . Dear colleagues, I would like to start congratulating the authorities of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the city of Riyadh, and to all the support staff for the successful organization of the 19th edition of the IJF-2024. Since its inception that took place in 2006, this forum has been developed, and it’s not only a yearly event, but it has transformed into a system. that celebrates where national forums and regional forums take place in more than 50 countries and also with activities that take place during the whole year. This amplitude together with its unique feature that the issues that are going to be discussed are decided through consultations on the ground makes that these NRIs and the IGF have become a platform that all the stakeholders can carry on a dialogue concerning policies that are not only important for the Internet governance but also to the digital world. This WESIS, which will celebrate its 20th anniversary next year, established in an unequivocal way the link between information technologies and communications and development. In the first phase of this summit, after tough discussions, the representatives of developing countries managed that the digital branch can be recognized as a new dimension of social activities that limit the access to knowledge and information. This summit allowed this subject to come out of the technical sphere and it will become a political subject that is interesting for the international community. Two decades later, it has been demonstrated that the information technologies and communications in general and Internet in particular essential tools for the development of the countries. It has also been confirmed that this positive impact of the Internet has much less importance in the developing countries than in the developed countries. So we also are using unilateral measures that don’t agree with the United Nations Charter and this don’t allow for the social development of the affected countries and undermine the welfare of its citizens. It is compulsory to eliminate these obstacles and the breaches that are generated by inequality when we talk about access to these technologies, and we have to create the skills that can contribute to the application of human rights, civil, political, economic, cultural, social rights for everyone, and the development and application of emerging technologies can be online with commitments made for sustainable development. This is not enough to implement the 2030 Agenda, it needs the support of concrete actions, access to markets, financing in fair conditions, transfer of technology, and cooperation North-South. The implementation of the recently approved Global Digital Pact gave us an opportunity to advance in this direction and reinforce international cooperation, but we have to try to increase the processes of digital governance. because if we don’t increase them, this will affect especially the developing countries. Dear colleagues, this declaration of principles of the first phase of the WSIS established a common vision of building an information society centered on the human being and targeting the development. Unfortunately, that noble purpose is still only an aspiration for a big part of the humanity. So now we have to make that this common vision becomes a reality, a commission that was conceived 20 years ago. Thank you.

Chengetai Masango: Thank you very much, Juan Fernandez. Next, I have the honor to call from our next host country, Her Excellency, Ms. Kirsty Tromsdale, Ambassador of the Kingdom of Norway to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

Kjersti Tromsdal: Excellencies, Members of Parliament, Distinguished Delegates, Ladies and Gentlemen, We have reached the end of the gathering of IGF 2024 here in Riyadh. I will join the voices of others in thanking the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia for their heartfelt hospitality and for hosting this event so graciously in this magnificent venue. You have been a fantastic host. This IGF has been a great meeting point for interaction between stakeholders in the global Internet community from all over the world. Together, we have truly been building our multi-stakeholder digital future. The vision that has guided IGF 2024. On behalf of the Norwegian government, I wish you all welcome to the next IGF in Norway in June 2025. The forthcoming IGF marks the forum’s 20th anniversary and it will be an important step on the path to the WSIS plus 20 review and the way forward with the Global Digital Compact. On this note, I can tell you that Oslo is a very popular city in the summertime, so we encourage you to book your hotel early. You can already now visit our host country website, IGF2025.no, and make use of the hotel booking facilities there. The Norwegian government wishes to build upon the outcome from this successful IGF here in Riyadh. We believe in an open internet governed through inclusive dialogue where all the stakeholders shape its future. We wish to use the opportunity in Norway to strengthen the dialogue and to secure IGF’s position as the primary global arena for deliberations of internet governance and digital development. I shall not keep you any longer, and I will finish off by showing you a short welcome video for IGF2025, but before I do that, I will conclude by repeating what our state secretary said in his statement in the opening session on Monday. Together we shall strengthen diversity and collaboration through inclusive, multi-stakeholder digital governance, which is crucial for a vibrant and sustainable digital ecosystem. Let’s meet in Norway in June next year for IGF2025 and shape this future together. Thank you. Shukran.

Chengetai Masango: Thank you very much. Our next speaker is a video from the Undersecretary General of the Economic and Social Affairs, UNDESA. That’s the home institution of the IGF, Mr. Li Junhua.

Li Junhua: Excellencies, distinguished delegates, ladies and gentlemen, as we conclude the 19th meeting of the Internet Governance Forum, I extend my heartfelt congratulations to all of you. Thank you for your dedication and collaboration in championing the principles of inclusive and accountable digital governance. On behalf of the United Nations, I extend my profound gratitude to our gracious host, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. By welcoming us to Riyadh, you have marked a historical moment as the IGF is hosted in the Gulf region for the first time. Your leadership and commitment to fostering inclusivity, dialogue, and multi-stakeholder collaboration exemplifies the core values of the IGF. Throughout this week, we explored critical issues under the theme, Building Our Multi-Stakeholder Digital Future. We tackled the challenges and opportunities of the digital age in over 300 sessions. The Riyadh IGF messages reflect the collective wisdom of this forum, distilling the insights and recommendations, and will serve as a guiding light for our shared journey ahead. As we approach the 20-year review of the World Summit on the Information Society, it is evident that the principles established in Geneva and Tunis are as essential today as they were two decades ago. Consider the foundational aspiration articulated in the WSIS Declaration of Principles to build a people-centered, inclusive, and development-oriented information society. This aspiration remains at the heart of our collective efforts. The ethical dimensions of the information society enshrined in the WSIS Principles emphasize respect for peace, equality, solidarity, and human dignity alongside shared responsibility, justice, and protection of fundamental rights. These principles have never been more relevant. Whether confronting the challenges of artificial intelligence, safeguarding human dignity in an increasingly interconnected world, or ensuring privacy and freedom of thought, these principles provide a steadfast ethical foundation. They remind us to take decisive actions against the harmful uses of technology, including discrimination, violence, and exploitation. Over the past 20 years, the IGF has evolved significantly, embracing and upholding these principles. It has grown into a global platform that not only reflects the values of the WSIS, but it also adapts to the rapidly changing digital landscape. Looking ahead, I am confident that the IGF will continue to thrive as a global space, where diverse voices converge to address the emerging challenges and shape a just, inclusive, and sustainable digital future. As we prepare for the next IGF Annual Meeting, let me express my thanks to our next host, the Government of Norway. I urge you to remain engaged actively. The vibrancy and impact of the IGF depend on your ideas, energy, and continued collaboration. Let us also ensure a successful outcome based on the General Assembly’s review of the WSIS and the IGF’s mandate, building on the progress achieved here in Riyadh. In closing, I thank you all for your contributions, your vision, and your unwavering commitment. Let us carry forward the momentum from REACT as we continue to work together to realize a digital future that leaves no one behind. I wish all of you safe travels and a joyful holiday season. To all stakeholders, on-site and online, thank you very much. I look forward to seeing you next year. Thank you.

Chengetai Masango: Thank you very much. We will now have a closing video from the host country.

Video: To those who imagined, invented, and shaped the circle that brought the far close and made the difficult simple, thank you. Johannes Gutenberg for preserving the essence of words and ideas. Thomas Edison for lighting our path and every path beyond. Alexander Graham Bell for giving voice and endless reach. To the visionaries who left indelible marks on even the smallest details of our lives, who simplified the complex and erased boundaries in communication, we owe you an immense gratitude. Thank you to those who shifted the compass of our needs and revolutionized our world. Thank you. Pioneers of the internet and technology. Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Larry Page, Sergey Brin, Raja Perlman, Jimmy Wales. Your contributions reshaped humanity. To everyone who has made life better, who has opened doors to knowledge and made connections seamless, thank you. The list stretches on and it’s far from complete. There will always be more innovators to honor, more creators to thank. For a future filled with possibilities, thank you. Your legacy shapes our future. Innovating together, shaping tomorrow.

Chengetai Masango: Okay, thank you very much. Before we conclude, I just want to point out that the IGF Riyadh messages and also all the other outcome documents, like from the parliamentary track from our dynamic coalitions and best practice documents are available now on the web and coming next week as well we’ll also be making sure that everything else is up on the web. So I wish you safe travels and I wish you also happy holidays. Thank you.

Agreement Points

Importance of IGF as a global platform for Internet governance discussions

Vint Cerf

Olaf Kolkman

Kjersti Tromsdal

Li Junhua

Permanent status for IGF within UN structure

IGF as primary platform for Internet governance discussions

Strengthening IGF’s position as global arena for Internet governance

IGF as platform for multistakeholder dialogue

Multiple speakers emphasized the crucial role of IGF in facilitating global discussions on Internet governance and the need to strengthen its position.

Need for inclusive and multi-stakeholder approach to Internet governance

Olaf Kolkman

Latifa Al-Abdulkarim

Kjersti Tromsdal

Li Junhua

Multistakeholderism as collaborative governance

Need for diverse stakeholder involvement in policymaking

Importance of inclusive dialogue in Internet governance

IGF as platform for multistakeholder dialogue

Speakers agreed on the importance of involving diverse stakeholders in Internet governance discussions and decision-making processes.

Addressing digital divide and promoting inclusive development

Angela Sulemana

Juan Fernández

Li Junhua

Addressing digital divide and barriers to Internet access

Link between ICTs and development

Need for inclusive and development-oriented information society

Multiple speakers highlighted the need to address the digital divide and ensure that ICTs contribute to inclusive development across all regions.

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized the importance of producing tangible results and taking concrete actions through the IGF process, rather than just engaging in dialogue.

Vint Cerf

Olaf Kolkman

Need for concrete outputs from IGF meetings

Multistakeholderism as collaborative governance

Both speakers highlighted the need to address governance challenges related to emerging technologies, particularly AI, with a focus on ethical considerations and human rights.

Latifa Al-Abdulkarim

Li Junhua

Addressing AI governance challenges

Ethical considerations in emerging technologies

Unexpected Consensus

Integration of health sector in digital governance discussions

Angela Sulemana

Latifa Al-Abdulkarim

Addressing digital divide and barriers to Internet access

Need for diverse stakeholder involvement in policymaking

The inclusion of a medical professional’s perspective (Dr. Sulemana) and the emphasis on involving diverse stakeholders (including health professionals) in digital governance discussions represent an unexpected area of consensus, highlighting the growing recognition of the intersection between healthcare and digital technologies.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The speakers generally agreed on the importance of strengthening the IGF’s role, promoting inclusive multi-stakeholder approaches to Internet governance, addressing the digital divide, and considering ethical implications of emerging technologies.

Consensus level

There was a high level of consensus among the speakers on core principles of Internet governance and the role of IGF. This consensus suggests a strong foundation for future collaboration and development of Internet governance frameworks. However, specific implementation strategies and priorities may still require further discussion and negotiation.

Different Viewpoints

Approach to IGF’s future role

Vint Cerf

Olaf Kolkman

Permanent status for IGF within UN structure

IGF as primary platform for Internet governance discussions

While both speakers emphasize the importance of IGF, Cerf advocates for a more formalized role within the UN structure, while Kolkman focuses on IGF’s role as a discussion platform without explicitly mentioning structural changes.

Unexpected Differences

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement revolve around the specific role and structure of the IGF, as well as the approaches to achieving concrete outcomes in Internet governance.

difference_level

The level of disagreement among the speakers is relatively low. Most speakers share similar overarching goals for Internet governance and the IGF, with differences primarily in the specific approaches or areas of emphasis. This suggests a generally aligned vision for the future of Internet governance, which is positive for collaborative efforts moving forward.

Partial Agreements

Both speakers agree on the need for more tangible outcomes from IGF processes, but differ in their approach. Cerf emphasizes concrete outputs from meetings, while Al-Abdulkarim focuses on diverse stakeholder involvement in legislative processes.

Vint Cerf

Latifa Al-Abdulkarim

Need for concrete outputs from IGF meetings

Need for diverse stakeholder involvement in policymaking

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized the importance of producing tangible results and taking concrete actions through the IGF process, rather than just engaging in dialogue.

Vint Cerf

Olaf Kolkman

Need for concrete outputs from IGF meetings

Multistakeholderism as collaborative governance

Both speakers highlighted the need to address governance challenges related to emerging technologies, particularly AI, with a focus on ethical considerations and human rights.

Latifa Al-Abdulkarim

Li Junhua

Addressing AI governance challenges

Ethical considerations in emerging technologies

Key Takeaways

The IGF is seeking permanent status within the UN structure and needs to produce more concrete outputs to justify this

Multistakeholder collaboration is crucial for effective Internet governance

Digital inclusion and addressing the digital divide remain key priorities

Emerging technologies like AI present new governance challenges that need to be addressed

Global digital cooperation and implementation of the Global Digital Compact are important focus areas

The IGF has evolved into a year-round system with national and regional forums playing an important role

There is increased parliamentary participation in the IGF process

Resolutions and Action Items

Prepare quickly for IGF 2025 taking place in June in Oslo

Focus on preparation for WSIS Plus 20 review

Revisit and revise the ‘Internet We Want’ document to include concrete metrics and milestones

Consider preparing a new ‘IGF We Need’ document to summarize recommendations for improvements

Parliamentarians to actively participate in global discussions on digital governance

Enhance digital capacity within parliaments

Foster inclusivity by inviting diverse stakeholders to contribute to legislative initiatives

Implement anticipatory governance to address future technological shifts

Unresolved Issues

Specific mechanisms for achieving permanent IGF status within the UN

Concrete plans for increasing IGF outputs and demonstrating impact

Detailed strategies for addressing the digital divide and ensuring universal Internet access

Specific approaches to AI governance and regulation

Methods for translating Global Digital Compact principles into actionable policies

Suggested Compromises

Balancing the need for concrete IGF outputs with maintaining its role as an open forum for discussion

Combining global principles with local implementation through national and regional IGFs

Integrating diverse stakeholder perspectives in policymaking while maintaining efficient governance processes

Based on the discussions among the leadership panel, the MAG, and in the IGF 2024 sessions, I conclude that our objective in the WSIS plus 20 should be permanent status for the IGF within the UN DESA structure.

speaker

Vint Cerf

reason

This comment sets a clear, ambitious goal for the future of the IGF, suggesting a significant institutional change.

impact

It framed much of the subsequent discussion around the future role and structure of the IGF, particularly in relation to the upcoming WSIS+20 review.

We must prepare quickly for IGF 2025 as it takes place in June in Oslo. Our focus should not only be preparation for WSIS Plus 20, but it should get serious attention in the run-up to and during IGF 2025.

speaker

Vint Cerf

reason

This comment highlights the urgency of preparation and sets a clear agenda for the next IGF meeting.

impact

It shifted the conversation towards concrete next steps and future planning, which was echoed by subsequent speakers.

We are happy to see that the Global Digital Compact recognizes the IGF as the primary multi-stakeholder process platform for discussion of Internet governance issues.

speaker

Olaf Kolkman

reason

This comment underscores the importance of the IGF in the broader context of global digital governance.

impact

It reinforced the significance of the IGF and set the stage for discussions on how to strengthen its role.

We must assess how and where we can evolve the existing processes to make them better and understand where we can apply self-learning to create tangible benefits for all.

speaker

Olaf Kolkman

reason

This comment introduces the idea of continuous improvement and self-assessment in the IGF process.

impact

It encouraged reflection on how to enhance the effectiveness of the IGF, which was picked up in later comments about concrete actions and outputs.

As we close the 19th United Nations Internet Governance Forum, together with my young colleagues and friends, I spend wonderful five days with, and I want to say a big thank you to the governments of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the United Nations, and its IGF Secretariat, organizers, speakers, donors, sponsors, and all participants for cooperating and your support.

speaker

Angela Sulemana

reason

This comment brings a fresh perspective from a young medical professional, highlighting the diverse participation in the IGF.

impact

It broadened the discussion to include the importance of diverse voices and sectors in internet governance, including healthcare.

Implement anticipatory governance to address the future shifts in technology, including emerging fields like the quantum computing and neurocomputing, to ensure that we are also prepared for the next frontier.

speaker

Latifa Al-Abdulkarim

reason

This comment introduces the concept of anticipatory governance and highlights emerging technological frontiers.

impact

It pushed the discussion towards considering future technological developments and how governance should adapt to them.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by setting a clear agenda for the future of the IGF, emphasizing its importance in global digital governance, encouraging self-reflection and improvement, highlighting the need for diverse participation, and pushing for forward-thinking approaches to governance. They collectively moved the conversation from reflecting on the current IGF to actively planning for its future role and structure, particularly in light of the upcoming WSIS+20 review and rapidly evolving technological landscape.

How can the IGF and NRIs put forward plans for more concrete outputs from annual and intersessional meetings?

speaker

Vint Cerf

explanation

This is important to earn enhanced status for the IGF within the UN DESA structure and secure permanent funding.

How can UNESCO’s revised set of Internet universality indicators be implemented and measured through NRIs?

speaker

Vint Cerf

explanation

This could provide valuable metrics for assessing Internet utility across countries and user groups.

How can the ‘Internet We Want’ document be revised to include concrete metrics and milestones for Internet utility?

speaker

Vint Cerf

explanation

This would help track progress and adapt to new applications and needs as the Internet evolves.

How can metrics be developed for assessing the implementation of the Global Digital Compact?

speaker

Vint Cerf

explanation

This would help highlight successes and identify opportunities for improvement in implementing the compact.

How can the IGF community prepare for WSIS Plus 20 and use it as an opportunity to examine IGF’s purpose and practices?

speaker

Vint Cerf

explanation

This is crucial for evaluating and potentially reforming the IGF based on 20 years of experience since 2006.

How can the collective experience of IGF and NRI participants be distilled into actionable forms?

speaker

Vint Cerf

explanation

This would make the insights gained from IGF more useful and applicable for other institutions and stakeholders.

How can the IGF community ensure that the WSIS review process is inclusive and truly multi-stakeholder?

speaker

Olaf Kolkman

explanation

This is important to ensure that all stakeholders have a voice in shaping the future of Internet governance and digital cooperation.

How can parliamentarians build a roadmap to enhance digital capacity and competencies within their parliaments?

speaker

Latifa Al-Abdulkarim

explanation

This is crucial for ensuring that parliamentarians and their staff are equipped to address digital governance issues effectively.

How can parliamentarians create common regulatory frameworks and interoperable legislations that work across national borders?

speaker

Latifa Al-Abdulkarim

explanation

This is important for addressing the governance gap in areas such as AI and ensuring consistent regulation across countries.

How can the positive impact of the Internet be increased in developing countries to match that of developed countries?

speaker

Juan Fernández

explanation

This is crucial for addressing the digital divide and ensuring equitable development through digital technologies.

Summary

This open forum focused on the safety of journalists online, featuring panelists from various regions discussing challenges and potential solutions. The discussion highlighted that journalists worldwide face similar issues, including online harassment, threats, surveillance, and censorship. These problems are particularly acute for women journalists and those from marginalized communities.

Panelists emphasized the need for multi-stakeholder approaches to protect journalists. Key suggestions included implementing stronger legal frameworks, improving platform accountability, providing support systems for victims, and enhancing international collaboration. The importance of digital literacy and ethical reporting was also stressed.

The discussion touched on the evolving definition of journalism in the digital age, with debates around including citizen journalists and content creators in protection measures. Panelists highlighted the role of media organizations in supporting their journalists and the need for better implementation of existing laws.

Positive developments were noted, such as the Council of Europe’s campaign on journalist safety and Switzerland’s National Action Plan. However, participants agreed that more work is needed to raise awareness about the importance of free press in democracies.

The forum concluded with calls for increased trust among stakeholders, better implementation of existing laws, and greater responsibility from tech companies in addressing online attacks against journalists. Overall, the discussion underscored the ongoing challenges in ensuring journalist safety online and the need for continued collaborative efforts to address these issues.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– The increasing threats and harassment faced by journalists online, including gender-based targeting

– The need for better legal protections, implementation of existing laws, and accountability for platforms

– The importance of support systems, training, and resources for journalists facing online attacks

– The role of media organizations in protecting their journalists and promoting ethical reporting

– Defining who qualifies as a journalist in the digital age and whether influencers/citizen journalists should be included

The overall purpose of the discussion was to examine the challenges facing journalists’ safety online and explore potential solutions and ways forward to better protect press freedom and journalists’ ability to do their work.

The tone of the discussion was initially somber when describing the serious threats journalists face, but became more constructive and hopeful as participants shared ideas for solutions and positive initiatives already underway. By the end, there was an emphasis on messages of hope and calls to action for various stakeholders to play their part in improving the situation.

Speakers

– Isabelle Lois: Works for the Swiss Federal Office of Communications on safety of journalists

– Bruna Martins dos Santos: Member of Brazilian Civil Society and MAG member

– Giulia Lucchese: Former secretary of Council of Europe expert committees, currently secretary of expert committee on generative AI and co-secretary of steering committee on media and information society

– Gulalai Khan: Policy communication governance and gender practitioner, teaches internet governance and technology policy at Lahore University of Management Sciences, founder of Pakistan Professional Woman Forum

Additional speakers:

– Jorge Cancio: Online moderator

– Audience member from Tanzania

– Dr. Nermeen Saleem: Audience member, Secretary General of Creators Union of Arab

– Alexander Savnin: Audience member, opposition politician from Russia

– Audience member, senior legal advisor with SEAD Foundation from Iraq

– Jolenta Rose Afanwi: Audience member, journalist from Cameroon Radio and Television

Safety of Journalists Online: Challenges and Solutions

This open forum brought together experts from various regions to discuss the pressing issue of journalists’ safety online. The panel featured Isabelle Lois from the Swiss Federal Office of Communications, Bruna Martins dos Santos from Brazilian Civil Society, Giulia Lucchese, former secretary of Council of Europe expert committees, and Gulalai Khan, a policy communication governance and gender practitioner from Pakistan. The discussion highlighted the global nature of threats faced by journalists and explored potential solutions to protect press freedom in the digital age.

Current Challenges Facing Journalists Online

The panellists unanimously agreed that online harassment of journalists is a widespread and growing problem. Giulia Lucchese emphasised that journalists face routine tracking, harassment, and threats online, with women journalists being especially targeted based on their gender. This sentiment was echoed by Bruna Martins dos Santos, who highlighted the extensive harassment campaigns faced by journalists on social media in Brazil, particularly those reporting on corruption and elections. She provided specific examples, mentioning journalists like Patrícia Campos Melo, Vera Magalhães, and Juliana Daupiva who have faced severe online attacks.

Gulalai Khan provided insight into the evolving landscape of journalism in Pakistan, noting that digital and online journalists played a key role in reporting on the country’s recent election. This shift towards digital journalism has brought new challenges, as traditional media outlets were perceived as less objective, leading to a loss of trust among the public. Khan also highlighted the unique challenges faced by small, independent digital media platforms, which often lack the resources to adequately protect their journalists.

The discussion also touched on the psychological impacts of online harassment on journalists, an issue that remains largely unaddressed. An audience member from Tanzania, Asha, pointed out that many media houses fail to recognise online harassment as a significant challenge, leaving journalists without adequate support.

Potential Solutions and Initiatives

The panellists shared several initiatives and potential solutions to improve the safety of journalists online:

1. Council of Europe Campaign: Giulia Lucchese detailed the Council of Europe’s Europe-wide campaign on the safety of journalists, which is based on four pillars: prevention, protection, prosecution, and promotion of information. The campaign has made significant progress, with 39 appointed national focal points, 23 national committees, and 8 countries implementing national action plans.

2. Swiss National Action Plan: Isabelle Lois presented Switzerland’s National Action Plan for the Safety of Journalists, which includes nine specific measures and four main wishes. The plan focuses on areas such as improving legal protections, enhancing dialogue between stakeholders, and raising public awareness about the importance of press freedom.

3. Platform Accountability: Bruna Martins dos Santos stressed the need for stronger accountability mechanisms for social media platforms, which often serve as the primary venues for harassment campaigns.

4. Legal Protections and Implementation: While many countries have laws protecting journalists, the panellists agreed that better implementation of these existing laws is crucial. Gulalai Khan mentioned Pakistan’s Protection of Journalists and Media Professionals Act 2021 as an example of legal frameworks that exist but require better implementation.

5. Support Systems: The importance of comprehensive support systems for journalists facing harassment was underscored by both Bruna Martins dos Santos and Gulalai Khan. This includes legal protections, organisational backing, and psychological support.

6. Digital Literacy Education: Gulalai Khan emphasised the importance of digital literacy education and curriculum changes to promote responsible online behaviour, potentially reducing instances of harassment.

Role of Different Stakeholders

The discussion highlighted the need for a multi-stakeholder approach to protect journalists effectively:

1. Media Organisations: Gulalai Khan stressed that media organisations should better support their journalists facing online harassment.

2. International Bodies: Bruna Martins dos Santos noted the importance of international collaboration and pressure from bodies like UNESCO, CPJ, and the Inter-American Commission.

3. Human Rights Organisations: The role of human rights organisations in documenting attacks on journalists was highlighted by Bruna Martins dos Santos.

4. Tech Companies: The crucial role of social media companies in addressing online harassment was emphasised, with calls for stronger mechanisms to prevent and respond to abuse targeting journalists.

5. Governments: The need for governmental action, including the implementation of national action plans and better enforcement of existing laws, was a recurring theme.

Emerging Challenges and Debates

The discussion also touched on several emerging challenges and debates in the field of online journalism:

1. Definition of Journalism: There was debate around who qualifies as a journalist in the digital age. Alexander Savnin, an audience member from Russia, questioned the selective protection of journalists, arguing that in less democratic regimes, the definition of a journalist becomes blurred.

2. Role of Influencers: Bruna Martins dos Santos highlighted the dual role of influencers in both perpetrating and combating online attacks, adding complexity to the media landscape.

3. Content Protection: An audience member suggested creating online repositories hosted in Europe for journalists to securely store their work, particularly in countries lacking proper legal frameworks for intellectual property protection.

4. Ethical Reporting: Adnan, an audience member from Iraq, emphasised the need for ethical reporting guidelines, particularly for sensitive topics or vulnerable individuals.

5. Technological Challenges: Giulia Lucchese noted the Council of Europe’s work on AI, including the framework convention on AI and the ongoing examination of generative AI implications for freedom of expression.

6. Psychological Impact: Jolenta Rose Afanwi from Cameroon suggested implementing checkup mechanisms to follow up on the psychological effects of online bullying on journalists.

Conclusion

The discussion underscored the ongoing challenges in ensuring journalist safety online and the need for continued collaborative efforts to address these issues. While positive initiatives like the Council of Europe’s campaign and Switzerland’s National Action Plan offer hope, the panellists agreed that more work is needed to raise awareness about the importance of a free press in democracies. Isabelle Lois mentioned a recent study in Switzerland that showed strong public support for the importance of a free and independent press for democracy.

The forum concluded with calls for increased trust among stakeholders, better implementation of existing laws, and greater responsibility from tech companies in addressing online attacks against journalists. Each panelist offered closing statements that provided a hopeful message for the future of journalist safety online, emphasising the importance of continued collaboration and innovation in addressing these challenges. As the media landscape continues to evolve, protecting journalists’ safety online remains a critical challenge requiring ongoing attention and innovative solutions from all sectors of society.

Isabelle Lois: So thank you all for attending this open forum on safety of journalists online. My name is Isabelle Lewis, and I work for the Swiss Federal Office of Communications. And one of the topics that I work on is the safety of journalists. And we wanted to take the opportunity here at the IGF to exchange on this important topic with the woman present in the room as my panelists and Jorge here, my colleague as well. Let me take a minute to introduce my panel. So we have Bruna on my right side. She is a member of the Brazilian Civil Society. And she’s also a MAG member. And we have on the other side of the room, Gulalai Khan, who is a policy communication governance and gender practitioner. And she teaches internet governance and technology policy at the Lahore University of Management Sciences, which is Pakistan’s first consolidated university level course on the topic. She’s also the founder of Pakistan Professional Woman Forum, which provides mentorship and networking opportunities for professional women in Pakistan. including female journalists. So very relevant for the topic today. And last but certainly not least, we have online Giulia Lucese. She’s the former secretary of the expert committee who was tasked to draft the Council of Europe’s recommendation on countering the use of strategic lawsuits against public participation, and as well the recommendation on combating hate speech. She is currently acting as the secretary of the expert committee on generative AI, implications on freedom of expression, MSI AI, and co-secretary of the steering committee on media and information society, running a Europe-wide campaign for the safety of journalists. So very much an expert on the topic. Welcome to you all. So this session is a moment for us to reflect on the importance of journalism and to share our views on how we can ensure that it can continue to do its important work, especially online. I believe that journalism and media is the fourth pillar of democracies. It helps to keep the public informed and aware of anything important that is happening in our societies. And 2024 has been a very important year on this part. It has been a super election year, as we would call it, with nearly half of the world population voting in their respective countries. And a free press is indispensable in any democracy because it is acting as a watchdog to ensure transparency, accountability, and informed decision-makings. But we have seen more and more problems for journalists with increasingly they’re facing online harassment, threats, surveillance, censorships, and more problems in this sense. So this is a bit the context on which we have planned the session today. It is divided in three parts. So we’re going to start by discussing a bit the problem. And then we’re going to address the potential solutions and a way forward. And then I hope we can have discussions with the people in the room. As you can see, we have an all-female panel. But we have our online moderator, Jorge, who is here to try to balance the gender quota. And so I think, I would hope that we can also take this opportunity to link the gender perspective on these issues. I think it is a very important point to take up. So I hope we can include that. On the technical side, is it possible for maybe us to also be on video for our panelists online? That she can see the room, if it’s possible. Could you please take care of that? I will start with my questions. And my first question is to you, Julia. You have a lot of knowledge with the work you’ve done for the Council of Europe and at the Council of Europe. Could you share some of your perspective on the most pressing issues concerning the safety of journalists online at this moment?

Giulia Lucchese: Yes, good morning, everyone. Can you hear me well? Yes, we can hear you. I do see a little of the room small in the screen. And I’m so sad that I cannot join you in person today. But thank you very much for inviting me on behalf of the Council of Europe. I will be providing an overview of what the organization is working on. And then to start, you did ask me which are the most topical issues at the moment when it comes to the safety of journalists. And I think a very good overview is currently provided by the annual report of the Platform for the Protection of Journalism and the Safety of Journalists. But also from the report on trends in freedom of expression in the Council of Europe member states. Both were published very recently. And very worrisome data do provide this panorama where actually journalists are routinely tracked, harassed and threatened online. and somehow these threats have even been considered some sort of a new normal. So we have some very old kind of threats and issues that actually go hand in hand with even new phenomenon and amongst these I will mention the strategic lawsuits against public participation that we see very well distributed in European member states. These incidents are so common that in several locations they are not even reported which is not just an issue for the journalists but also for the audience, the public at large which risks not being informed, not having access to the information of public interest that it has a right to get to know. And in this scenario women journalists appear to be especially targeted online because of their work but on the basis of their gender. Of course such threats have increasingly a very well an evident chilling effect which causes significant psychological harm but also potentially leads journalists to some sort of a self-censorship. Another issue is that what we have seen is that journalists are also facing including online verbal abuse and smear campaigns by politicians and such attempts by figures in power, figures holding an authority undermine the credibility of journalists themselves, then suffer at least in several countries from low levels of public trust. And in this climate of growing mistrust towards the journalists what happens is then a cycle where the distrust arises and the journalist can even be targeted by physical attacks and very often also online attacks and we have seen these for example. for example, from far-right or far-left groups. Now, I will not get to solutions. I know that you will present the Swiss National Action Plan, but what I want to say is that we are already seeing a change at member states’ level that I hope we will address then later in our conversation.

Isabelle Lois: Thank you so much, Giulia. And yes, I hope that we will be able to address that change in our session, how it continues. And thank you for making us a bit aware of the scene and the most pressing issues. I know that you have more of a European perspective, but I guess these issues are reflected elsewhere. And in that sense, I wanted to turn to you, Gulalai, if you could share maybe a bit of your main points that you see in South Asia, or especially in Pakistan, concerning the safety issues for journalists online. I know that you had an election this year, so maybe you could have some insights on that as well.

Gulalai Khan: Yes, so thank you, Isabel, and thank you for your office for arranging this very important session. I was not very surprised when I heard Julia saying all these things about Europe, because I think it’s across the world, especially with the new media coming in, journalism is under threat, journalists are attacked, and online spaces are becoming very toxic for all professionals, especially journalists. When you talk about elections, yes, this has been a super election, a super election year, and we saw a similar election happening in Pakistan also. But there is a slight shift from how it was reported this time. So most of the traditional media, the trusted big names, they were either on one side or the other. So the objectivity for traditional media was lost, which also meant the trust in them was lost. So digital and online journalists, or online even citizen journalists, were the main… content creators, as I would say, for this election. That’s another story that on the election day, the internet went down and people could not connect, but most of the stories coming out on election day of how well or not well the election went was on online spaces. But the threats remain. Threats on how much you can say, what do you say, and then what are the repercussions for journalists online, especially in a very, very highly polarized society like ours, it was very common that even journalists on online spaces were taking their own sides because either due to safety or some other reasons, which again, it comes down to the fact that then people start asking, who do we trust? Who do we trust for factual news sources? And that has become quite a big issue in a country like ours where the government is struggling with big misinformation and disinformation campaigns, hate speech, a society which is highly polarized. So there is a control that needs to be, or is supported because there has to be legislation on hate speech and all, and there’s an other side where the freedom of expression and people know what’s happening. So this has been one of the biggest challenges this year for us, but I just want to go back a little to 2021, where Pakistan made history by passing two very pivotal rules to support and protect journalists. One was the same protection of journalists and the other was Media Protection Act to 2021. These were legislations which the National Assembly passed and these were approved. The only thing that lacks is, and I talked about right to privacy, right to protection for journalists, even right to sources and protection against harassment. But again, as with all laws and policies, we saw that the implementation has been slow, either due to the lack of resources or other challenges. So this is an area that I think in the. and nationally, everybody has to work together on. Sometimes you have the best laws, but then they’re not implemented. We’re still waiting for a commission for the safety of journalists to be set up. So that’s one of the areas. And one point, Isabel, if you allow me, I know the time is limited, but I really want to talk about this new age journalism, which is now being practiced by small media houses and small independent sources where the digital platforms becoming newsworthy and also the main sources of news for people or the public. And these digital platforms have challenges with financing. They have challenges with also sometimes harassment and content creation, because they don’t have as big as robust teams, but they are doing some incredible work. And that is the kind of work that needs to be promoted because they are not just keeping journalism alive. They’re also keeping the hope alive that our online spaces can be used for constructive purposes. So for right now, this, and then we come to solutions later on.

Isabelle Lois: Thank you so much for also adding a positive spin at the end of this, because I know it can be sometimes a bit depressing when we’re focusing on the issues that we are facing and on the problems that we have. And now I will turn to another region of the world, and I’m happy to have Bruna here who can maybe tell us a bit about the pressing issues in Brazil or in Latin America as a whole. And I’ve heard that there have been some cases of gender-specific targeting or harassment for journalists. Do you think that this is a trend or isolated cases? I would love to hear a bit your opinion on this. Now it’s working.

Bruna Martins dos Santos: Thanks. Thanks for the invite. And thanks also to the Swiss government for organizing this open forum, which I think is one of the very few sessions about human rights on the IGF agenda this year. And I think I’ve been saying this for a couple of years, it’s rather sad that we don’t promote. more and more debates on these topics, as the IGF should be the core space for also discussing human rights aspects. So I will focus a little bit on both places, like Brazil and the region too, but I would like to maybe start by saying that it’s the same, like none of what both Julia and Gulalai said are actually new to us, right? The trends, they repeat themselves, the trends are very much similar between the countries, and it’s really indeed a global trend that journalists, actually no, harassment campaigns have been facilitated in order to shut down journalists, and especially the ones responsible for reporting topics such as corruption, elections, and some of the most urgent or the most divisive topics in this space. When I look to Brazil, I’m happy to come from a country where the rights for a free press is in the constitution, it’s enshrined in the constitution, and we also have a rather positive and progressive legal framework that’s very prone to trying to facilitate and convene a free press and the journalism profession in general, but when I was preparing for this session, three names came to my mind, that are Patrícia Campos Melo, Vera Magalhães, and Juliana Daupiva, three of the Brazilian journalists that were extensively harassed on Twitter during the Bolsonaro government and also during the campaign a couple of years ago. Patrícia is one of the most prominent ones, she was reporting on a lot of the Bolsonaro government wrongdoings, and by doing so she was a victim of misinformation campaigns, and also subjected to a rather big smear campaign featuring sexualized slurs, false allegations about her professional integrity. and the same happened with both Vera and Juliana. Juliana, after this entire period went through, she even launched a book about the Bolsonaro family and she continues to be one of the targets by Brazilian far-rights online. That leads me to maybe the last part of my, this first intervention, is that when we look to Latin America more broadly, journalists are, as I said, the ones reporting on corruption, organized crime, human rights abuses, elections, they tend to be the highest victims of online violence, such as doxing, targeted disinformation campaigns, and attempts of discrediting their work. But this does not just happen with female journalists, but also with the ones from marginalized communities, such as indigenous communities, quilombolas in the case of Brazil, and also the queer community, where they have been great targets in that sense. And last but not least, I think that for some of those cases, and maybe Mexico is a relevant example, but Brazil still is as well, we do still practice, sadly, a fair amount of political and state-sponsored campaigns, where some of the political actors or governments, they have been implicated in orchestrating these online harassment campaigns, and they often employ gender-specific narratives, as in attempts of claiming that this person is not clever enough, that they came from a different place, they were funded by a different kind of political party, and so on, in order to polarize the public opinion, but also to undermine the credibility of all of those journalists. But maybe I’ll stop here, and then we can continue later.

Isabelle Lois: Thank you so much, Bruna, and thank you, all three, to sort of set the scene, and effectively, as I imagine, and as the three of you pointed out, the issues that we’re facing are quite similar in the different regions of the world, and maybe if someone from the audience later would want to share. points on the areas that we have not covered in the missing regions and that would be very interesting to hear. We keep coming back to different contexts but similar similar issues. So in order to not stay in this more sadder part of looking at what is what is wrong or what is not functioning or what could be better, I want to look at what we can do or what we should do. How can we ensure that we have a better protection for journalists online? How can we work with or for media organizations, education institutions, international organizations, states, journalists, I mean all stakeholders that that are active in this area. How can we provide solutions? And I want to give the word first to Giulia who has done a lot of work on this at the Council of Europe and I would love for you to share some of the important work that you have done and maybe some insights that you have gained and that you could share and could be used in different countries or in different areas.

Giulia Lucchese: Yes, thank you. Well I’m really glad to pass to a more positive side of the conversation. So we’re looking into the potential solutions or positive results or what we see advancing. I will again provide a perspective that is that of an international intergovernmental organization. So the first example I can provide which I think it’s already getting a lot of attention and achieving results is that of a campaign, a Europe-wide campaign that was decided to be initiated by the 46 member states of the Council of Europe. It’s a campaign on the safety of journalists which was launched only 14 months ago in October last year and the campaign goal is pretty much translating standards into action and therefore operationalize the good intentions and achieve pragmatic results. How to do this in several different ways. First we have a methodology which is to look into four main pillars of the safety of journalism. and therefore the protection, the prosecution, fighting against impunity, the prevention and the promotion of information education and awareness. Through these four pillars, the goal is to really stimulate the states to do something effective and effectiveness comes from changes in legislation, setting support programs and mechanisms and raising awareness on why it is important to ensure the safety of journalists. It sounds evident, but at so many different levels, it is not. So the most urgent task is of course that to establish effective protections against the physical and online attacks, the misuses of law, the stigmatization and the arbitrary treatment and failures of judicial protection and impunity. Specifically, when it comes to training, the member states should be encouraged to give prominence to the available standards and to educational materials dealing with the issues these address, including gender-specific issues and put forward some tailor-made training for the judiciary, the legal professionals and relevant public authorities, which should take into account the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights, which has a very strong and solid case law on freedom of expression issues, but also taking into account the existing procedural tools, the substantive standards and the core values and deontological rules of the profession of journalists. Then when it comes to resources, what is necessary is to ensure a rapid access to a wide range of different support and protective measures, first and foremost against physical protection. but also the provision of support, for example, by relevant actors such as those allocating adequate resources to provide such support. And in order to be effective in practice, it should be considered that the role that can be played by the specific associations of journalists and also tailor the support to the specific need of the victims of an attack online and offline. This range of measures should also ideally be made available for secondary and indirect victims of attacks online. Now, as I said, we’re looking into promising results. Some are already very clear, but we also see how they greatly are different in practice from a state to the other. So the starting point differs very much. So they’re different in nature, in ambition and degree of development. But what we see is that 14 months after the launch of the campaign, we count today 39 appointed national focal points, 23 national committees and eight countries which are currently implementing national action plans. Amongst these, we count Switzerland, but we also have some other very notable models, such as, for example, the Persweilig project in the Netherlands. The campaign insists that it is necessary to have a multi-stakeholder approach. So here really is the encouragement to set up at the national level these committees. And the reason why, for example, as I said, Persweilig is a leading example in this subject is because it has managed to bring together all the relevant actors, which are, of course, the journalists, but also the national police, the public prosecutor’s office, relevant ministries, association of chief editors and media houses. So all of this conversation together can actually translate in effective change at the national level. I will not continue further, because I know you will provide some insights on what is happening at national level in Switzerland, but I want to maybe leave with a positive note, like much is happening, and we will be able to assess the effectiveness of the measures taken during these years, only in some time from now, the campaign lasts until 2027, and possibly we will look into the legacy of the campaign in the years to come.

Isabelle Lois: Thank you so much, Giulia, for this overview and also these very positive notions of what is happening, what is being done and the will to actually work on this, and I’m happy to, I look forward to in a couple of years to see how this campaign has affected and hopefully helped the situation. I will take this opportunity to share just a little bit about what we have done in Switzerland on this topic. Last year, on the 3rd of May, which is International Press Freedom Day, Switzerland published its National Action Plan for the Safety of Journalists, and just to say a little bit about this action plan, we have nine specific measures that are aimed to raise awareness and focus on prevention, protection and support in cases of violence and threats for journalists, and it also examines the existing legal framework for this protection. So the general aim of this action plan was to put the topic of journalists’ safety in the public agenda, to truly draw attention to the problem that journalists are facing, and to make the society, the politicians at every level aware that there is a central role for the media for a proper functioning of a democracy such as Switzerland. And so this was really the aim of it and every single measure we identified and are trying to put forward goes into this part of putting the topic of journalism in the public agenda. the safety of journalists on the agenda. The four main wishes we have with this national action plan is to one, have a better recognition of the role and the profession of journalists or media actors. We have used the term media actors in the national action plan to have it more than just on the focus of journalists because there are many people involved in this work. The second point is a better protection against online threats and hate speech. The third point is better physical protection. And the fourth is a better understanding of the abusive lawsuits against journalists that are often known as slaps. And this is something where Julia is absolutely an expert. And so these are the four points that we have tried to center our national action plan on. And of course, these points are not specific for online safety, but each measure in its certain way has an online component. We can obviously not talk about harassment without talking about online comments. We can’t talk about lawsuits without the online part of it. So we’re trying to bridge what is happening offline as well as what is happening online. So I won’t go into more detail about this now, but I’m happy to answer any questions that there might be on the different points that we have put in place. And I want to give the microphone to Bruna and maybe she can share what her thoughts on what we can do collectively to promote and improve the safety of journalists online. I know you have a civil society perspective. How can we ensure that all the relevant stakeholders are involved in this discussion?

Bruna Martins dos Santos: Thanks. As we were chatting, I think I was really thinking what’s the role of social media companies in this conversation, right? A lot of these smear slash harassment, gender violence related campaigns, they rely a lot on social media companies and the lack of proper mechanisms either for… quick response either the channels for communicating with the journalists for the cases should be escalated or any other means That users have in general to to you know to complain about this So I see the platform accountability issue as one of the core Aspects of this conversation because we do still need stronger mechanisms to not just detect but also help prevent gendered abuse and hate speech that’s Targeting journalists rights. Nothing of these are no solutions that we can implement whether it’s a strategic litigation or stronger frameworks will work if social media continues to go and Exist as uncontrolled as they have in the last years or if you know Moderate content moderation mechanisms continue to echo hate speech and a lot of those problematic types of speech or tech harms Other than that I would see the role of the judiciary or policy makers in coming up with newer legal protections or new legal frameworks regulatory frameworks to establish enforced laws that can address Specifically online harassment and ensuring that these perpetrators they can face legal action and can face legal consequences in that sense and It’s the sad part about it all is that my country right now is is Reviewing the the civil rights framework for the Internet and we might we might Right arrive in a different stage in the beginning of next year as some of the protections Around the online speech might go elsewhere. But that’s that’s one of the points that I think it’s important to think The last three points would be support systems, right? Above all, it’s really important to have proper mechanisms for the victims the journalists to have some sort of either psychological or legal support to deal with these cases None of these names that I mentioned either Juliana or Vela better or Patricia They would have been able to continue their work if they didn’t have the proper means for for legal protections or anything like that, right? This is an aspect that goes, like online harassment goes beyond just the online world, right, and affects a lot of their ability to speak or to be present in these spaces. So having support systems coming from different stakeholders is really relevant. And last but not least, I would say international collaboration. So efforts by bodies like UNESCO, CPJ, the Committee for the Protection of Journalists, and the Inter-American Commission, or the OHCHR in this case, for the global case, are really crucial in helping pressure governments and also platforms in finding ways to address online violence and finding ways to come up with new mechanisms, either from self-regulatory spaces or statutory regulation aspects. But the goal is that we pressure them in order to come up with newer and improved mechanisms to protect journalists effectively. But I’ll stop here. Thanks, Isabelle.

Isabelle Lois: Thank you, Bruna, for all these points, which are very well taken. I have taken notes on these. These are all important things to include at a national or international level and to think about when we are discussing how we can protect journalists more effectively. Gulalai, I wanted to ask you, could you share a bit how you see the way forward to ensure freedom of expression? What work can be done and maybe should be done on this?

Gulalai Khan: Yeah, so I’d like to take, and you’ve said, on the fact that platforms also need to do some work on this, because we have seen that leading platforms and their owner have actually called out journalists, and that does not help with journalism being respected in online spaces. So probably that is something, since you’ve presented the Swiss plan for journalism, and that is one aspect of that. So I think that platform accountability and also their role, because at the end of the day, all the online. threats harassment happens on these platforms and their algorithms sometimes support them and you know make them more viral for their own self so probably that’s number one. You also talked about the fact that most of the online problems but you need to have stronger analog components for digital dividends so very good that you have all those points especially with the word the media actors that you talked about because we cannot actually in the digital ignore these new content creators who are you can call citizen journalists or people who are but they’re not trained enough so probably you need to train them on fact checking the difference between and the debate around citizen journalism versus the mainstream journalism is that probably the fact checking and the training that goes for you to become a journalist is sometimes weaker in those who are on online spaces so if governments can also support this and civil society together that can be really really helpful you then get more fact-checked and authentic content on online spaces. I also want and of course everybody has talked about how academia civil society and everybody come together to support journalists in the very critical work that they do but so some of the journalists come from the traditional backgrounds and when they have these the online platforms the exposure is little so they need to be trained for those platforms they are there new ways to create content there are new ways to disseminate it and they need to be trained on that so I think capacity building is a very very important part part yes and it also saves them from the harassment and the threats because then they also know because digital security is also a critical part of that training that we are talking about. And last but not the least, I think it’s about time that we have a very feminist and a gender-sensitive approach to all the work that we do. The kind of harassment, the kind of wild women journalists face on these platforms, especially in countries like ours, is, I mean, I can’t even describe it.

Giulia Lucchese: And whether you like her or not, but the rape threats is just the beginning, right? So it’s not easy. And I think that the government need to protect women journalists more. They need to be trained how to protect themselves online. We have seen people self-censor themselves just because they’re afraid of the threats. So probably a very, very robust mechanism to support them. I talked about laws being there. So a stronger implementation of those laws is something that I think is the best way forward. You have the best laws on paper. Let’s implement them.

Isabelle Lois: Thank you. OK, yes. Thank you so much for these very important points. And I think all three of you have raised very important aspects that we need to think about when we’re thinking about protection of journalists. I want to quickly break here and see if there are maybe any questions in the room or online. I see a question in the room. Can we maybe get many questions in the room? Can we maybe get a mic?

Audience: Hello. Thank you. I’ve listened to a lot of conversation. By the way, a wonderful insight. I’ve enjoyed it. My name is Asha from Tanzania. And as much as we’ve talked a lot about multi-stakeholderism as in all, I think we need to identify when you’re looking for solutions, there are solutions. which are immediate, it can be done immediately, and those that can be done long-term. And for me, I feel like it’s always important to identify the kind of solutions that are required, because from all these conversations that we’ve been talking about, we were doing an advocacy on technology-facilitated gender-based violence in Tanzania. We have several learnings, but one relevant to this was that the media houses, first, they don’t identify technology-facilitated gender-based violence as a challenge. And then what does it mean when news is covered in their media houses, professional media houses that has been there forever, they put headlines online that amplify abuse to a woman, especially maybe a political leader, somebody in public, that is one of the challenges. But the second one, which is very saddening, when you are a journalist in a media house and you incur this violence online, they don’t care. You know, we isolate violence as an incident, it is not, because the affection is not, the effect is not only online. You go back home, you’re frustrated, people know you, they’ve seen the violence, it is all, it takes, and it depends. Some are digitally resilient, a week, two weeks, they’ll be fine. Others, it will take three months and the job becomes very hard. So I would really like, from all your work, what is the role of media? Are they really playing that factor? Are they intentionally putting in policies in your countries? I would like to know if it is similar with ours. Thank you. Sorry, I’ve taken some moment.

Isabelle Lois: Thank you for your question. I think it’s very good. Maybe we can do more and then go to some answers. Go ahead.

Audience: Thank you for you all. Allow me, this is just a comment and not a question. I’m Dr. Nermeen Saleem. I’m the Secretary General of Creators Union of Arab. It’s a member in United Nations, a Cossack and Social Council. And I think we have a solution, it’s kind of, we have launched in this IGF a platform called intellectual property verification in the digital area. This is targeted audience for this platform is the creator content on the social media and so on. This platform is like give the creator a priority date of his content. And he go to this platform and make a submission for his content, such as article or videos or audios or photos and so on like this before sharing his content via social media. He will get a QR code with IPV and accepted it depends on its technology on AI checking that this article or photos not have a similarity content in the digital area. And when it’s approved that this is the owner of this content, he has a contract on the blockchain to register this is the owner of this article before sharing via social media. This platform help the creator to protect his content before sharing in the social media. And we have negotiations and conversation with the intellectual property organization specialized around the world and this platform is targeted around the world, not only in just region. So I think if you want to know about this platform, it’s our pleasure to visit our booth to explain the technology of this one and the criteria to register your work. Thank you.

Isabelle Lois: Thank you so much. That is a very interesting project and I hope I think we will. we’ll probably all go to the booth and hear some more about it. Maybe I can take one more question. I have one here. This side maybe. Let’s go there.

Audience: Okay. I have a question. But also, I think you allow me a little comment from Mr. Neuro. So, why we do select a journalist as a special…

Isabelle Lois: Could you just state your name, please? Could you please just state your name?

Audience: Okay. Alexander Savnin. Opposition politician from Russia. So, why do we state that we need to protect journalists selectively? Maybe in you, in Western countries, journalists have some privilege. But if regime is not very well democratic, the only pro-regime journalists stay clearly journalists. If you are a bit of posing, you become instantly politician, journalist, civil society activist, forever else. But, well, we are talking about protection of journalists. Let me give a few examples, because a lot of… I’m not talking about Russia today, so that’s… They are journalists in your definition, but I would not like to talk about them. But we’re talking about Russian opposition journalists. When it was a bit loose regime, people were gathering, were protecting journalists, were protecting their works. But in return, journalists… For example, the case of Ivan Golunov, who was falsely accused on drug distribution for his work by the government, and the whole society, whole politicians, rised up and said, yes, he needs to be freed, the case has been cancelled. But when the same exactly, the same looking false drug distribution accusations appeared towards political activists, journalists said, no, no, no, we have to investigate this, including Ivan Golunov. We have to investigate, maybe they are really drug dealers. So why, my question, why we should select journalists? In modern world, everyone is a blogger, everyone is civil society… be accepted again in the Western world. I think in Brazil, the situation is also moving toward that. Yeah, I understand you are from Switzerland, you are colleagues of Russian Roscom, not Zorza, they are exactly doing the same things. But my question maybe to all panelists and the audience, why are journalists in such a privileged position?

Isabelle Lois: Thank you for that question. I think we have a few more. We will get to your question.

Audience: Thank you. I think my comment is kind of similar to the comment from the madam here. I think the journalists should also be protected from their work being stolen online, especially through social media platforms. And I think it happens everywhere, especially in countries where there is a lack of proper legal framework. So I would be very happy to hear any solution, aside from technical solution that you mentioned, but any solution in terms of policy making anywhere in the world. Thank you.

Isabelle Lois: Thank you so much. And I apologize, I know you’ve been raising your hands on this side of the room for quite a while.

Audience: Thank you so much, everyone. I will try to make it very quick. I wanted to talk about ethical reporting, actually, because a lot of time when we… Okay, sorry. My name is Adnan. I’m senior legal advisor with SEAD Foundation from Iraq. I wanted to talk about ethical reporting, because when we talk about journalist protections, some risks come from how they interact with what they will be reporting online. So my organization as well, we have developed some guidelines and also trained some journalists in my country, how they are reporting women survivors, for example. because they are putting their own life at risk when they disclose information and also others’ life as well. That was just an example. And the other question is, I know that nowadays the online platform made it very easy for everyone to be a journalist and to write, but in the meantime there is no authority journalists actually, because they are like an army and part of the risks comes from them, because they are directed to attack the other journalists. Do you think that we really need to work on solidarity to bring all the journalists and people who write online on those platforms, that we have these ethics that we need to follow instead of working this way? Thank you so much. The briefest comment then I’ll pass on to my friend there. More like if someone’s maintaining a bucket list, you know one of the problems that journalists being persecuted often face, even before an arrest or a case, is digital devices being seized, which leads to a lot of loss of work, loss of employment, sources and there’s, you know, tech savvy journalists now try to create their personal online repositories that are maintained on a server that is not their home country, things like that. But if there can be some investment into this, you know, especially having some online repositories hosted in Europe that, you know, that individual journalists can access, upload their work to ensure that journalists who are persecuted don’t lose all their work immediately. Just a brief. There are, I know, for-profit solutions but, you know, if there can be something more public for this, that’s it. Thank you. Thank you very much for the opportunity. It’s been some beautiful insights. I am called Jolenta Rose Afanwi. I’m a journalist from Cameroon. I work with the Cameroon Radio and Television. a worry, let me just go back with it into my country. We have laws protecting journalists, but which are not effective. And we’ve come to a place in Cameroon where you have it that if a journalist has been bullied online, or any of this is happening online, we just give it that. OK, after two weeks, the information will die down, and maybe the person’s image would be redeemed by itself. But now we don’t have those checkup mechanisms to follow up to ensure that. But how is this person’s psychology playing as far as this bullying and these effects goes with you as an individual, and even with your family? I think, is there a checkup mechanism that can be put in place to ensure that countries actually stay within this line? Because even some of the governments also bring up this bullying on journalists. Thank you.

Isabelle Lois: Thank you so much, all of you, for all of the great questions. I might just turn quickly. Is there any questions online that we should look at? It doesn’t seem to be the case. Now we can try comments and questions, which are very interesting. We just start on one point on the definition of journalists or media professional, because it’s something that we in Switzerland have thought a lot about when we decided to have the National Action if it should be focused exclusively on journalists or a bit broader. And we decided to include in our plan a vision that not the people working the media are more than just a journalist writing or reporting. And it’s also maybe the cameraman and the people who are editing and their media chain. And so this was the vision that we had to enlarge not just journalists, but have all of the media professionals. We did not include in that the content creators on social media, as the Swiss legal system is quite clearly making a distinction of traditional media and non-traditional media, and so to make it fit within our legal system, we had to make that distinction. But we are working on tracking safety in Switzerland for media professionals, and in this study that we are currently doing, the users, or let’s say the citizens journalists, as I was saying, are also included in that study. So we will have hopefully numbers quite soon on how that situation is. This is the answer we found for our country that fits, but of course it is a bigger question on how do you define journalist, who would be included, where do you put the limit, where do you put the line. We would love to know from our panelists, is there someone who wants to answer one of the questions?

Bruna Martins dos Santos: I don’t want to put you on the spot. No, just two things. On the influencers bit, or who is actually part of the media, I do think that for the Brazilian landscape, the role of influencers was really pivotal, right? Because they were also part of the folks that were responsible for the attacks, and responsible for fostering violence against journalists, against female politicians, and they were part of these campaigns, right? Brazil until last year, a year ago, was very much dominated by this kind of speech that came, and it was like a much bigger scheme of things, right? It was the president himself, his sons, their supporters, they were all part of a bigger kind of way, and maybe metal language kind of thing online, that’s where the whole goal was to suppress and cut off all of these people from existing online. So it’s really important to see what could be the role of influencers. because although they might not be seen as traditional media, they can also play this very concerning role in fostering the attacks and so on. My last point was about reporting mechanisms, and I do believe that that’s one of the aspects, right? Normally, when those cases take place and so on, it’s really a role for human rights organizations and human rights defenders to continue raising them, documenting and putting the word forward on what’s the relevance of protecting journalists online. So I do see the work of organizations, let’s say like Reporters Without Borders, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and many others as a core work in the broader protection of not just journalists but activists online, especially in light of those attacks. So just putting these things.

Isabelle Lois: Thank you so much. Giulia , maybe you want to bring a few points here.

Giulia Lucchese: Yes, thank you very much. I really enjoyed listening to both questions and observations. It does provide an idea that this subject is actually so much more articulated than what we would like to think, and it is really important to look at every single perspective and layer also of the issue. Too much has been said, but at least two points I wanted to address. I heard about the concerns related to the challenges arising from the technology developments when it comes to the safety of journalists, but also to the entire media ecosystem. And I think there is an absolute necessity to somehow strengthen the legal frameworks, not only looking into the standards that are already available, but also continue looking, studying, analyzing and understanding the effects of what technology is bringing to the discussion. And this can be risks, this can be potentials, there can be… a lot of there also to ensure a better safety.

Isabelle Lois: I think we have a slight connection issue. Okay, in waiting until Julia gets back online, maybe, Lulay, I’ll let you.

Giulia Lucchese: I think there was a very important point about the role of media organizations to support and to protect their own journalists when they are being harassed. They need to have capacity building programs as well because traditional media houses, they are using digital to earn a lot of money and get relevance back from how irrelevant they became because of the fact that people have… But this is, again, a reason being… And number two, most of these journalists who are part of traditional media houses as journalists, as anchors, or proper journalists, they also have their own social media channels. So sometimes they’re working independently. Not speaking for the entire world, but they’re also working independently of the media houses. So the argument sometimes is that that’s their own channel, so that harassment or that comes from their own work rather than being associated with the media house. However, there are incidences, especially with women journalists, where being associated and even sometimes injured due to the harassment on site, the media houses have not reported it or not dealt with it as they should have been. So yes, that can be a part of it. I don’t know if there is a legal solution to it, but there has to be more pressure groups and more advocacy around it for media houses because they are at the end of the day commercial bodies and they need to be just more supportive of their workers.

Isabelle Lois: Thank you so much, and I think you’re very right that the advocacy is essential. There is a lot of work that needs to be done to make sure that everyone understands the role that media, journalists, or even social media users play in our world. There was a study recently in Switzerland that talked about the perspective of the people on media, and I think about half of the Swiss population believe that it’s essential to have a free and independent press for democracy. But that means that the other half is either not sure or does not believe that. And I think that these numbers are a bit scary to hear, because we’re in a country that is usually seen and I believe very democratic, where there is a lot of work on ensuring that democracy is played out in the best way possible. And so if we in such a country are struggling to see the importance of a strong press, of a press that can talk and deal with the different issues, how does that reflect in maybe other spaces? I think it is an important part on advocacy, which goes beyond the laws and the rules.

Giulia Lucchese: One more point, I think that when we talk about online harassment, of course it begins with a powerful figure just harassing somebody or talking about it. But generally then everybody else joins in. So the general population and citizens, there should be an information literacy or a digital literacy and what the do’s and the don’ts on online platforms is also an important part of work and that can also be included in curriculum. Like I said, I know that the multi-stakeholder approach doesn’t work all the time, but bringing in academia at a certain point is important because it has to go into curriculum on the fact that what abuse online looks like, what abuse does to people online. you know, when you do that, what are the psychological, I mean, it doesn’t just make stronger citizens, but also citizens who are responsible online. So, internet for people who want to be there and not just comment recklessly.

Isabelle Lois: Absolutely. I see that Julia is back online, maybe you can finish the point you were trying to make. Can we unmute her mic? Yes. And put her on the screen. Yes, I think we can hear you, Julia.

Giulia Lucchese: I’m so sorry, I got disconnected, but I’ll be very short. I heard about the technology challenges. I think it’s really important to look into those. It’s issues that are developing daily, we may say, so it’s really important to understand them before making focused proposals. But I’m glad to say that at the Council of Europe level, much is happening. We had a framework convention on AI, which was adopted and opened for signature already this year. We’re currently looking from the freedom of expression side into the implications of generative AI applications for freedom of expression. And then there was another point which concerned more the hateful comments online, but also how the media somehow can even amplify these messages, and therefore I wanted to go back to the recommendation of the Council of Europe on combating hate speech, which in fact addresses the media as specific actors which should take effective measures in order to actually not only prevent, but also encouraging to combat hate speech and to put forward a message that is not an hateful one, while avoiding any stereotypes and hateful narrative. And with this, I close because I see we are really heading towards the end of this very interesting session, and I thank the organisers for inviting the Council of Europe.

Isabelle Lois: Thank you so much, Giulia. and it’s been a pleasure to have you, and it’s always a pleasure to work with you. I will take the opportunity to say that. Yes, indeed, we have, I think, two minutes left, so very little time. I want to thank you all for participating. Maybe we can have one line per speaker to sum up this session, and I would love to continue the conversation at some other point. Bruna, please.

Bruna Martins dos Santos: The same line as before. I would like to see big tech companies owning the responsibility they play in online attacks and NGBV and, you know, attacks against the queer community and journalists in that sense.

Isabelle Lois: Thank you.

Gulalai Khan: I would like to see the laws already being implemented effectively. That will sort out most of our problems, especially on online spaces as well.

Isabelle Lois: Giulia, do you have a last one-liner for us?

Giulia Lucchese: Because we are expressing hopes, I would like to see more trust in the role that every respective actor can play in order to actually reach an effective safeguard of journalist safety.

Isabelle Lois: I really like these last lines being sort of a message of hope, and I will just add that I hope that we can continue having these important conversations and making these spaces available. So thank you all so much for participating. Thank you so much for everyone who asked questions and made comments. This is something that’s very important for us, that the IGF sessions are collaborative. The knowledge is not just with the panel but with everyone in the room, so I’m very happy to have been able to share that with everyone. Thank you.

Agreement Points

Online harassment of journalists is a widespread issue

Giulia Lucchese

Gulalai Khan

Bruna Martins dos Santos

Journalists face routine tracking, harassment and threats online

Digital and online journalists played a key role in reporting on Pakistan’s recent election

Journalists in Brazil face extensive harassment campaigns on social media

All speakers agreed that online harassment of journalists is a significant and widespread problem across different regions.

Women journalists face heightened risks online

Giulia Lucchese

Gulalai Khan

Bruna Martins dos Santos

Women journalists are especially targeted based on their gender

Media organizations should better support their journalists facing online harassment

Journalists in Brazil face extensive harassment campaigns on social media

The speakers concurred that female journalists are particularly vulnerable to gender-based online attacks and harassment.

Need for better implementation and enforcement of existing laws

Gulalai Khan

Bruna Martins dos Santos

Need for better implementation of existing laws protecting journalists

Need for stronger accountability mechanisms for social media platforms

Both speakers emphasized the importance of effectively implementing and enforcing existing laws and mechanisms to protect journalists.

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers stressed the need for comprehensive support systems, including legal and organizational backing, for journalists facing online harassment.

Gulalai Khan

Bruna Martins dos Santos

Importance of support systems and legal protections for journalists facing harassment

Media organizations should better support their journalists facing online harassment

Both speakers highlighted the importance of addressing the role of online actors (general public and influencers) in either perpetuating or combating online harassment of journalists.

Gulalai Khan

Bruna Martins dos Santos

Importance of digital literacy education on responsible online behavior

Role of influencers in both perpetrating and combating online attacks

Unexpected Consensus

Role of non-traditional media actors in journalism

Gulalai Khan

Bruna Martins dos Santos

Isabelle Lois

Digital and online journalists played a key role in reporting on Pakistan’s recent election

Role of influencers in both perpetrating and combating online attacks

Switzerland published a National Action Plan for the Safety of Journalists

There was an unexpected consensus on the importance of recognizing and addressing the role of non-traditional media actors, such as digital journalists and influencers, in the current media landscape. This consensus spans across different regions and contexts, indicating a global shift in understanding the evolving nature of journalism.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The main areas of agreement included the widespread nature of online harassment of journalists, the heightened risks faced by women journalists, the need for better implementation of existing laws, and the importance of comprehensive support systems for journalists. There was also consensus on the evolving nature of journalism and the role of non-traditional media actors.

Consensus level

The level of consensus among the speakers was high, particularly on the core issues facing journalists online. This strong agreement across different regions and contexts underscores the global nature of these challenges and the need for coordinated, multi-stakeholder efforts to address them. The consensus also highlights the urgency of implementing effective measures to protect journalists and preserve press freedom in the digital age.

Different Viewpoints

Definition and scope of journalists to be protected

Isabelle Lois

Alexander Savnin

Switzerland published a National Action Plan for the Safety of Journalists

Why do we state that we need to protect journalists selectively?

While Isabelle Lois presented Switzerland’s National Action Plan focused on protecting traditional journalists and media professionals, Alexander Savnin questioned the selective protection of journalists, arguing that in less democratic regimes, the definition of a journalist becomes blurred.

Unexpected Differences

Role of influencers in online journalism

Bruna Martins dos Santos

Gulalai Khan

Role of influencers in both perpetrating and combating online attacks

Digital and online journalists played a key role in reporting on Pakistan’s recent election

While Santos highlights the dual role of influencers in both perpetrating and combating online attacks, Khan focuses on the positive role of digital and online journalists in election reporting. This unexpected difference in perspective on non-traditional media actors is significant in understanding the evolving landscape of online journalism.

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement revolve around the definition of journalists to be protected, the role of different stakeholders in ensuring journalist safety, and the approach to addressing online harassment and attacks.

difference_level

The level of disagreement among the speakers is relatively low, with most differences stemming from varying regional perspectives and focuses rather than fundamental disagreements. This suggests a general consensus on the importance of protecting journalists online, but with differing emphases on implementation strategies based on local contexts.

Partial Agreements

Both speakers agree on the need for better protection of journalists online, but they focus on different actors: Santos emphasizes the role of social media platforms, while Khan highlights the responsibility of media organizations.

Bruna Martins dos Santos

Gulalai Khan

Need for stronger accountability mechanisms for social media platforms

Media organizations should better support their journalists facing online harassment

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers stressed the need for comprehensive support systems, including legal and organizational backing, for journalists facing online harassment.

Gulalai Khan

Bruna Martins dos Santos

Importance of support systems and legal protections for journalists facing harassment

Media organizations should better support their journalists facing online harassment

Both speakers highlighted the importance of addressing the role of online actors (general public and influencers) in either perpetuating or combating online harassment of journalists.

Gulalai Khan

Bruna Martins dos Santos

Importance of digital literacy education on responsible online behavior

Role of influencers in both perpetrating and combating online attacks

Key Takeaways

Journalists face significant online harassment and threats, with women journalists especially targeted

Digital and online journalists are playing an increasingly important role in reporting, especially in countries with less press freedom

Multi-stakeholder approaches involving governments, media organizations, tech companies, and civil society are needed to improve journalist safety online

Existing laws and protections for journalists need to be better implemented in many countries

New challenges are emerging related to technology, including the role of social media platforms and influencers

Resolutions and Action Items

Council of Europe launched a Europe-wide campaign on safety of journalists

Switzerland published a National Action Plan for the Safety of Journalists

Continued work on understanding and addressing implications of new technologies like AI on freedom of expression

Unresolved Issues

How to effectively hold social media platforms accountable for their role in online harassment

How to define and protect ‘journalists’ in the digital age when many act as independent content creators

How to address the psychological impacts of online harassment on journalists

How to protect journalists’ work and content from being stolen or misused online

Suggested Compromises

Broadening the definition of ‘media professionals’ to include more than just traditional journalists, while still maintaining some distinctions

Balancing the need for content moderation and protection against online harassment with concerns about censorship and freedom of expression

We have seen more and more problems for journalists with increasingly they’re facing online harassment, threats, surveillance, censorships, and more problems in this sense.

speaker

Isabelle Lois

reason

This comment set the stage for the entire discussion by highlighting the growing challenges faced by journalists online.

impact

It framed the conversation around the urgent need to address online threats to journalists and led to a deeper exploration of specific issues in different regions.

When you talk about elections, yes, this has been a super election, a super election year, and we saw a similar election happening in Pakistan also. But there is a slight shift from how it was reported this time. So most of the traditional media, the trusted big names, they were either on one side or the other. So the objectivity for traditional media was lost, which also meant the trust in them was lost.

speaker

Gulalai Khan

reason

This insight highlighted how political polarization is affecting traditional media’s credibility and shifting the landscape of journalism.

impact

It led to a discussion about the rise of digital and citizen journalism, especially during elections, and the challenges this poses for information integrity.

When I look to Brazil, I’m happy to come from a country where the rights for a free press is in the constitution, it’s enshrined in the constitution, and we also have a rather positive and progressive legal framework that’s very prone to trying to facilitate and convene a free press and the journalism profession in general, but when I was preparing for this session, three names came to my mind, that are Patrícia Campos Melo, Vera Magalhães, and Juliana Daupiva, three of the Brazilian journalists that were extensively harassed on Twitter during the Bolsonaro government and also during the campaign a couple of years ago.

speaker

Bruna Martins dos Santos

reason

This comment provided a concrete example of how even in countries with strong legal protections, journalists can face severe online harassment, especially women journalists.

impact

It shifted the discussion towards the gendered nature of online harassment and the gap between legal protections and real-world experiences of journalists.

The campaign insists that it is necessary to have a multi-stakeholder approach. So here really is the encouragement to set up at the national level these committees. And the reason why, for example, as I said, Persweilig is a leading example in this subject is because it has managed to bring together all the relevant actors, which are, of course, the journalists, but also the national police, the public prosecutor’s office, relevant ministries, association of chief editors and media houses.

speaker

Giulia Lucchese

reason

This comment introduced a concrete example of a successful multi-stakeholder approach to protecting journalists, offering a potential model for other countries.

impact

It shifted the conversation from describing problems to discussing potential solutions, emphasizing the importance of collaboration between different sectors.

As we were chatting, I think I was really thinking what’s the role of social media companies in this conversation, right? A lot of these smear slash harassment, gender violence related campaigns, they rely a lot on social media companies and the lack of proper mechanisms either for… quick response either the channels for communicating with the journalists for the cases should be escalated or any other means

speaker

Bruna Martins dos Santos

reason

This comment brought attention to the crucial role of social media companies in addressing online harassment of journalists, a perspective that hadn’t been deeply explored earlier in the discussion.

impact

It led to a broader discussion about platform accountability and the need for stronger mechanisms to prevent and respond to online abuse targeting journalists.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by broadening its scope from a general overview of challenges faced by journalists to a more nuanced exploration of specific issues, regional differences, and potential solutions. They highlighted the complexity of the problem, touching on political polarization, gendered harassment, the changing landscape of journalism, and the role of various stakeholders including governments, civil society, and tech companies. The discussion evolved from identifying problems to proposing multi-faceted solutions, emphasizing the need for collaboration across sectors and borders to effectively protect journalists online.

What is the role of social media companies in addressing online harassment of journalists?

speaker

Bruna Martins dos Santos

explanation

Social media platforms are often the primary venues for harassment campaigns, and stronger mechanisms are needed to detect and prevent abuse targeting journalists.

How can media houses be encouraged to support their journalists who face online harassment?

speaker

Audience member (Asha from Tanzania)

explanation

Many media houses don’t recognize online harassment as a challenge or support their journalists who experience it, which can have significant psychological impacts.

What solutions exist to protect journalists’ work from being stolen and shared on social media platforms?

speaker

Audience member (unnamed)

explanation

This is a particular concern in countries lacking proper legal frameworks to protect intellectual property online.

How can ethical reporting guidelines be developed and implemented, particularly for reporting on sensitive topics or vulnerable individuals?

speaker

Audience member (Adnan from Iraq)

explanation

Ethical reporting practices can help mitigate risks both to journalists and to the subjects of their reporting.

What mechanisms can be put in place to ensure countries follow through on implementing laws protecting journalists?

speaker

Audience member (Jolenta Rose Afanwi from Cameroon)

explanation

Many countries have laws protecting journalists that are not effectively implemented or enforced.

How can secure online repositories be developed to protect journalists’ work in case their devices are seized?

speaker

Audience member (unnamed)

explanation

Journalists facing persecution often lose access to their work when their devices are seized, impacting their ability to continue working.

How can digital and media literacy education be incorporated into curricula to promote responsible online behavior?

speaker

Gulalai Khan

explanation

Educating the general public about online abuse and its impacts could help reduce harassment of journalists and others online.

What are the implications of generative AI for freedom of expression and the safety of journalists?

speaker

Giulia Lucchese

explanation

As AI technology rapidly develops, it’s important to understand its potential impacts on journalism and free expression.

Summary

This discussion focused on the applications and implications of blockchain technology across various sectors, particularly in conjunction with other emerging technologies. The session, part of the Dynamic Coalition on Blockchain Assurance and Standardization at the IGF, featured experts presenting on different aspects of blockchain use.

Malak Trabelsi-Loeb introduced a quantum governance model to address the potential threats quantum computing poses to current blockchain and cryptographic systems. She emphasized the need for adaptable, scalable, and ethical governance frameworks that can proactively manage disruptive technologies.

Heather Leigh Flannery discussed the transformative potential of blockchain and decentralized AI in healthcare and life sciences. She highlighted the possibility of creating equitable, sustainable, and privacy-preserving global health infrastructures, emphasizing the importance of public-private partnerships and evidence-based scaling of solutions.

Dr. Adel Elmessiry presented the Artificial Intelligence Value Protocol, a framework designed to verify and certify AI projects using blockchain technology. This system aims to create a value-based AI marketplace and promote ethical AI use.

Priya Guliani spoke about decentralized identity as a foundation for trust in the digital world. She explained how this approach could empower individuals, enhance security, and address challenges posed by emerging technologies like AI and quantum computing.

The potential of blockchain and other emerging technologies to transform global healthcare was briefly discussed, presenting several projects aimed at improving healthcare accessibility, efficiency, and personalization.

Overall, the discussion highlighted the diverse applications of blockchain technology and its potential to address complex challenges across various sectors, while emphasizing the need for robust governance, standardization, and ethical considerations in its implementation.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– The impact of quantum computing on blockchain and cryptography, and the need for quantum-resistant systems

– The potential of blockchain and decentralized technologies to transform healthcare and enable precision medicine

– The importance of decentralized identity systems for privacy, security and user control

– Using AI, blockchain and other emerging technologies to address global health challenges

– The need for governance frameworks and standards for blockchain and AI implementations

Overall purpose:

The goal of this discussion was to explore how blockchain and other emerging technologies like AI and quantum computing can be applied to create more trustworthy, secure and equitable systems, particularly in areas like healthcare, identity management and governance.

Tone:

The overall tone was optimistic and forward-looking. Speakers were enthusiastic about the potential of these technologies to solve major global challenges, while also acknowledging the need for proper governance and ethical considerations. The tone remained consistently positive and solution-oriented throughout the discussion.

Speakers

Speakers from the provided list:

– Dino Cataldo Dell’Accio: Chief Information Officer of the United Nations Pension Fund

– Malak Trabelsi-Loeb: CEO of Trabelsi-Loeb Legal Consultants, Founder of Vernwell

– Dr. Adel Elmessiry:  Professor, American University in Cairo

– Sari Qasim: Middle East region leader for Government Blockchain Association, Chief Strategy Officer of iBlockchain in Bahrain

– Heather Leigh Flannery: Co-Founder and Chief Executive Officer at AI Mind Systems Foundation

– Priya Guliani: CEO of EarthID, Regional Director of Government Blockchain Association for Europe, Middle East, and Africa

Additional speakers:

– Audience member (unnamed): CEO of Innovation Network Canada

Revised Summary of Blockchain Technology Discussion

This summary outlines a discussion on blockchain technology and its applications across various sectors, particularly in conjunction with other emerging technologies. The session, part of the Dynamic Coalition on Blockchain Assurance and Standardisation at the IGF, featured experts presenting on different aspects of blockchain use, its potential impacts, and the need for governance and standardisation.

Introduction and Context

Dino Cataldo DellAccio, co-leader of the dynamic coalition on blockchain assurance and standardisation, introduced the session and its objectives. He emphasized the importance of developing standards and governance frameworks for blockchain technology to ensure its responsible adoption and implementation across various sectors.

Sari Qasim highlighted that blockchain technology extends beyond cryptocurrency, emphasizing its broader applications and potential impacts across various sectors. He stated, “Blockchain is not only about crypto. It’s about many other things.”

Quantum Computing and Blockchain Security

Malak Trabelsi-Loeb introduced a quantum governance model to address the potential threats quantum computing poses to current blockchain and cryptographic systems. She emphasized the need for adaptable, scalable, and ethical governance frameworks that can proactively manage disruptive technologies. Trabelsi-Loeb argued for the development of quantum-resilient cryptography and governance frameworks, stating, “The quantum governance model, it’s, it’s feasible and actionable framework, it is it is resting on adaptability. So we adapt and we don’t react.”

Blockchain in Healthcare and Life Sciences

Heather Leigh Flannery discussed the transformative potential of blockchain and decentralized AI in healthcare and life sciences. She highlighted the possibility of creating equitable, sustainable, and privacy-preserving global health infrastructures, emphasizing the importance of public-private partnerships and evidence-based scaling of solutions. Flannery painted a visionary picture, stating, “Imagine a world where every individual person on earth was able to engage in an active and dynamic precision health, digital first healthcare and life sciences infrastructure.”

Flannery also discussed the potential for blockchain to enable decentralized clinical trials and research, stating, “We’re able to do decentralized clinical trials, decentralized research, and we’re able to do that in a way that protects privacy.” She emphasized the importance of the blockchain maturity model developed by the Government Blockchain Association and the Blockchain Assurance and Standardisation Dynamic Coalition for realizing this vision.

AI Value Protocol

Dr. Adel Elmessiry presented the Artificial Intelligence Value Protocol, a framework designed to verify and certify AI projects using blockchain technology. This system aims to create a value-based AI marketplace and promote ethical AI use, particularly in healthcare settings. Elmessiry explained, “The protocol addresses the need for discovering, creating immutable records for, and promoting ethical use of the many AI systems being developed.” He highlighted how this protocol could incentivize the development of beneficial AI projects and ensure their proper validation and certification.

Healthcare Without Borders Initiative

An audience member, identified as the CEO of Innovation Network Canada, discussed the potential of blockchain and other emerging technologies to transform global healthcare. They presented several projects aimed at improving healthcare accessibility, efficiency, and personalization, highlighting the potential for AI and blockchain to address global health challenges. The speaker mentioned initiatives such as “Healthcare Without Borders” and specific projects like “Project Nightingale” for sleep apnea detection and “Project Amber” for breast cancer screening using thermal imaging and AI.

Decentralized Identity and Trust

Priya Guliani spoke about decentralized identity as a foundation for trust in the digital world. She explained how this approach could empower individuals, enhance security, and address challenges posed by emerging technologies like AI and quantum computing. Guliani emphasized, “Decentralized identity represents a paradigm shift in the realization of digital human rights as well,” highlighting the potential for blockchain-based identity systems to empower marginalized groups and enhance privacy and security for all users.

Guliani also discussed the concept of “self-sovereign identity” and how blockchain can enable individuals to have greater control over their personal data. She stated, “It’s about giving power back to the individual, allowing them to control their own data and decide who has access to it.”

Conclusion

The discussion showcased the diverse applications of blockchain technology and its potential to address complex challenges across various sectors, while emphasizing the need for robust governance, standardization, and ethical considerations in its implementation. Due to time constraints, the session concluded with a brief acknowledgment of the rich content presented and the potential for further discussions on these topics.

Dino Cataldo DellAccio: you you okay so good afternoon to the audience here in a rehab good morning and good evening for those who are connecting remotely and online welcome to the session of the dynamic coalition on blockchain assurance and standardization my name is Dino DeLattro I’m the chief information officer of the United Nations Pension Fund and here within the IGF I’m co-leading with Gerard Dachet the president of the government blockchain association this dynamic coalition so today I have the privilege to be joined by distinguished subject matter expert that they will be presenting real case and real expertise on specific use cases of blockchain you will hear about blockchain and quantum blockchain artificial intelligence blockchain and digital health blockchain in digital identity I have an on-site moderator as well as an online moderator. We have three speakers on site and two speakers online and I’m now going to pass the floor to them to make a brief introduction about who they are and about who they represent and which field are they working on. We will start with Malak Trabelsi.

Malak Trabelsi-Loeb: Thank you very much. It’s an honor to be here today. My name is Malak Trabelsi-Loeb. I’m the CEO of Trabelsi-Loeb Legal Consultants and the founder of a group of companies, Vernwell, and my practice when it comes to law, it’s related to international business law, space, tech, and national security law. So when we talk about being here and what I’m presenting, it’s related to the blockchain and quantum computing and a governance model which we are proud to present for the first time ever. Thank you.

Dr. Adel El-Mesiri: Good morning, everybody. My name is Dr. Adel El-Mesiri. I have a PhD in machine learning, artificial intelligence, and trust networks, which is blockchain. So my focal point is the use of blockchain and AI, especially in healthcare. I supervise students at the medical group, as I have a bunch of companies, most notably is AlphaFin with Tim Draper and AIVP, which is the AI value protocol and health reasoning, which uses AI in the healthcare sector. I’m more than happy to be here with you. I’m also a member in the GBA and in the coalition. Thank you.

Audience: Hi, everyone. I’m CEO of Innovation Network Canada. I have also worked before as CTO at Deep Tech Canada and led business development at the Quantum Algorithm Institute. I’ve also found SAPIUS, which provides personalized health information system that are sustainable and responsible. And I’m very happy to be here and with you to talk about health care.

Sari Qasim: Thank you. Sari. Yeah. So thank you, Dino. Thank you so much for this introduction. My name is Sari Qasim, and I am from the Government Blockchain Association. I lead the Middle East region, and I’m also the Chief Strategy Officer of iBlockchain in Bahrain. As Mr. Dino alluded about blockchain assurance and standardization dynamic collision, this is quite a very important subject that we make this dynamic collision to make sure that any blockchain projects come on the ground will be trusted by the government and will be a project that people can trust as well. Before I go back to Heather and online, I would like to add one more point about blockchain assurance. Ladies and gentlemen, blockchain is not crypto. This is one point to be cleared for everyone. We are here to talk about blockchain real use cases in a subject to help the people of Earth. And crypto is something different. It’s just a use case. Some of it is good, some of it. But this is just to clear the umbrella that we are working as a dynamic collision here with the United Nations. With that, I go to Heather Flannery, if you would like to introduce yourself, please.

Heather Lee Flannery: Thank you so much. Hello, everyone. My name is Heather Lee Flannery. I am the Co-Founder and Chief Executive Officer at AI Mind Systems Foundation, where we are focused on the convergence of blockchain and Web3, decentralized AI, and privacy enhancing technologies in order to radically empower individuals to participate equitably in the digital world. in a massively AI-driven and digital environment. Our very specific focus is on enabling systems of governance and collaboration that can prioritize underserved and vulnerable populations first and create alternative capital structures and resource distribution models that can address unintended consequences of previous generations of exponential technology. It’s an honor to be here, and it’s also an honor to serve as the chair for the Healthcare and Life Sciences Working Group at the Government Blockchain Association, and to be a member of the IGF Dynamic Coalition for Blockchain Assurance and Standardization. I’m looking forward to this event, and thank you very much for including me.

Sari Qasim: Our honor, our honor, Heather. With that, Goen-Gib, would you like to introduce yourself? Goen-Gib, you are in mute. There you go.

Priya Guliani: Hi, everyone. I’m Priya Guliani, CEO of EarthID, a multi-award-winning decentralized identity platform. At EarthID, we specialize in cutting-edge identity wallets and privacy-preserving verifications. I truly believe in the transformative potential of digital identity, and I’m a really passionate advocate for it. I’m going to be talking more about identity today. I am also the regional director of Government Blockchain Association for Europe, Middle East, and Africa. Absolutely honored and delighted to be here, and looking forward to contributing to this conversation today. Thanks.

Sari Qasim: Thank you so much. Okay, now we will share the presentation, if you please, and we will start with Malek. Malek, if you would like to enrich us.

Malak Trabelsi-Loeb: Hello. Good afternoon again, and I would like to have the slides shared, please. So, today we’re going to, you’re going to dive with me briefly into quantum impact, securing blockchain trust in the quantum era. And I have one question for you. Next slide, please. The question is, what makes you trust? What makes you trust? Trust systems, people, or technology? And this is a question for the audience. Expert opinion. Good one. Should we say it is consistency or reliability or transparency? Maybe all of them. That’s what is blockchain about. So if we move to the next slide, we’re going to see an eye opener. What happens when trust faces its greatest challenge? And this challenge, you could see it if you surf on the internet, what quantum computing poses as threat to our blockchain systems. Are you familiar about quantum computing? Yes? Anyone is a physicist here? Anyone is a computer scientist here? Computer scientist, can you tell us what you know about quantum computing and what threat it can pose to blockchain systems or to cryptography? As we see here, different news papers, clips and other saying, for example, crypto apocalypse soon. Is it soon?

Dr. Adel El-Mesiri: Not really. But you asked about what’s quantum computing and quickly in a nutshell, basically traditional computing depends on. 0 and 1, so it’s a binary state. So in any problem that you need to work with, you have to solve it serially with a 0 and 1. However, in real life, problems have a vast majority between 0 and 1, like infinite number of different states it can be in. That’s what quantum computing is all about. Quantum computing, the state could be in any of those there. And it uses something called qubits. So to bring it all home, when you are trying to solve a problem with traditional computing, you have to go through billions of operations to find the right solution sequentially. However, in quantum computing, you solve the billion computes at the same time, hence the power.

Malak Trabelsi-Loeb: Thank you so much for this. So we’re talking about qubits with quantum computing. We’re talking about different possibilities at the same time, which is different than the computational power that we have today. And the state of quantum computing today is not that what we are waiting for, to have a very cryptographically relevant quantum computing that will break the cryptography that we have today. So we see so many misinformation, disinformation going on. It’s like saying that Google’s quantum computing chips put Bitcoin at risk. And other, they say, there is a possibility of, or Chinese scientists, they broke military-grade cryptography. And it took the internet by storm. But actually, what is true, they did only two bits, and this with D-wave computing for now. And this is a great alarm to say that quantum computing is coming, and we need to be ready for. What is the purpose here? I’m not here to speak about the technology behind quantum computing, because it’s not my field. I have experts that are doing that in Vernoil. And we are working on different activities related to that. And even with the cryptography, and we are researching on the different possibilities on the transition for cryptography, that it is resilient against the risk of quantum computing, which will happen in the future. But what is important today, how to be ready and the governance. Actually, when we talk about governance, and I will take you a little bit back to my expertise, which is related to space law. And my thesis was about the problems is related to international law gaps pertaining space or new space activities. And the problem in that we find out that the current legal systems or the current international law is not appropriately prepared for new space activities and the entrance of commercial space actors into that. And we have big problems with sustainability, we have big problems with environmental issues, and my drive with how can we find a legal system or actually a governance format or system that can regroup all this in one single way or model that can govern disruptions and can govern disruptive technologies. So if we go to the next slide, please. So the thing is like the foundations that we have today, the foundation of our cryptographic systems of internet, the internet of trust that we want to have, and the risk that is going to be coming into the future. So we find that the cryptography with the blockchain is based on SHA-256 for mining, and that is supposed to have a risk with cryptographically. relevant quantum computing which is in the future to be with a timeline of we say 2030-2035 but that it is disrupted will be disrupted by quantum computing and the impact will be huge. Can you imagine that if they say it will be or they predicted it will be around 1 trillion of losses yearly because of probably financial and institutions they will not be ready for this kind of or this disruption that it is in the future. So how can we do this? We’re not going to sit down and say well it’s not going to come soon because actually the migration and working into migrating as per NIST to the quantum relevant cryptography and and it’s it’s it’s not it will not be done overnight. It will need time to do that and actually we have the timelines and we need to follow what’s happening and what is what experts are saying in terms of the migration and all the stock intake of what is in our system in terms of cryptography. So if we go to the next step please. So actually what what is the main point here? We try or we want not try because we will do it and this is a resting on all of us. We will build an internet of trust based on safeguard protect blockchain with quantum resilient systems and the second one is how we can do it because it needs collaboration and the collaboration will be fostering global partnerships for shared innovation. Then how can we adapt? So we need to evolve governance framework for emergent challenges and and this needs education because it’s one of the layering basis in all what we are doing is education and education. It’s involved formal and formal education, awareness of the public, and also formal education and training to this experts who are in into different or coming from different backgrounds. So next one, please. So the quantum governance model, and this is like, like I said, based on my thesis, it was social legal analysis of the existing way how we govern space activities, then being involved in different policymaking with governments and other strategy with with different other governments. And this, I seen that we have our way of making our governance, it’s always static. And it’s, it’s, it’s reactive, it’s not going and taken further in order to make a model, which is proactive. And it’s, it’s, it’s making a preparation for the disruption that is happening. So we have different policy makers, and they are working on AI, we have different policy makers, they are trying to work on on quantum, because it’s a new field. Relatively, you have we have others, they are working on blockchain systems, and so forth. And the idea is, how can we have a governance, a governance model, that it is applicable on all this and use disruptions, because we call these disruptive technologies to use these disruptions to disrupt? How can we do that? And because actually, it’s not easy also to come and say, well, we have a different governance model that it is relaying upon technology itself. So the the quantum governance model, it’s, it’s feasible and actionable framework, it is it is resting on adaptability. So we adapt and we don’t react. And we saw that based on the way how COVID-19 was happening. And we were on on on a shock mode, and we did not know how to utilize the resources that we have very fast in order to be prepared. And the preparation, we saw it. It was relatively good in certain countries. In others, they’re not. So the other point is scalability. So it needs to be scalable. And we need to add different solutions based on different technologies. And we will speak about the technologies in a minute. So also, it is based on ethics at scale. Now we put the ethics at the end. We work on the technology, then the ethic comes later. And ethicists, they come to say that here are, there is red lines and things like that. So this one is ethics is at scale, and I will tell you how. And what is very, very important is what are the technologies, and this model will be done. Can I have the next slide, please? Thank you. So using disruption to govern disruption. It’s that way. And that’s why I told Sari yesterday, I love disruption. Because actually, I find a way in it. So turning disruption into opportunity. And this is how we use disruptive technologies in order to find a solution. So I found that AI can be used for foresight. And it is done, but it’s in silo. Always it’s done in different mode. So predict risks and evaluate governance outcome. And quantum simulations is used to test policies under complex scenario. The other one is blockchain transparency to ensure accountability and collaborative governance. The other one is safe quantum solutions. Of course, it’s like moving into secure systems against quantum threats. And global collaboration platforms. Unite stakeholders for proactive solutions. And we talk about… We talk about… Hello. Yes, and we talk about coalitions. So this is what it is done for. So next slide, please. And the framework in action, how can we do it? Actually, some, she’s crazy, probably. She’s coming with something. Always I come with something new and crazy. I’ve been driving with my entities, the quantum revolution in the region since 2020. And when I brought quantum into the region, they say, she’s crazy. This will never work. There’s no quantum computing relevant. Today, we see nations, how they are moving very, very fast in order who has the supremacy to harness the quantum technologies for their nations because it became a national security prerogative. So how to make this governance model operational? Operational. It’s using governance sandbox, dynamic regulations frameworks based on what I was presenting earlier. Collaborative decision-making platforms and ethical oversight system. And this one is using AI. And I spoke with Dr. Adel earlier and he told me, actually, they work on something like that. So actually, when we look at different entities, they have these in silos. And the point is how to bring these together in one platform. And the other one is empowering stakeholders to lead the future because empowerment is education. It’s also preparing the future generation and digital twin models. So I think I finish. So to finish this one, just to present what we are doing, like I said, been driving the quantum revolution in the area. So from making or creating different opportunities and having the first quantum lab for education in the region, which was at Abu Dhabi University. and we opened that quantum lab. The other one is working on a consortium, which is bringing the main companies worldwide to work on the quantum adoption program, our initiative, and this one we launched challenges in order to create different solution to problems that we have worldwide, not only in the region. And we have also launched the Quantum Innovation Summit, which is not an event, it is a platform that creates partnerships and brought the different stakeholders worldwide. And the next one will be working on policymaking also or proposing policies. Thank you so much.

Dino Cataldo DellAccio: Thank you so much, Heather. Thank you for this really opening eye presentation. I wish your frame of work governance is going to see the light in a higher levels. It’s really promising. And for the audience, if you have any questions, it will be at the end of the session. Now we go next to Priya. Heather, Heather, you have the mic now, if you would like to share the presentation with us.

Heather Lee Flannery: Thank you very much for the introduction. I am not using slides today.

Dino Cataldo DellAccio: Okay, so Priya, you have the slides for?

Priya Guliani: So yes, yeah, I’ll put them up. Just a second.

Dino Cataldo DellAccio: Okay. Heather, you would like also to introduce like two minutes of, yeah, the presentation, but Priya have the presentation. Okay. You can go ahead. So Heather, are you going first?

Priya Guliani: Yeah, Heather will go first.

Dino Cataldo DellAccio: Heather will go first, okay.

Heather Lee Flannery: Okay, so then we can unshare that slide. Thank you, Priya. I am so honored to speak with you today about the subject of healthcare and life sciences and the implications of blockchain and decentralized AI in this field. What I would like to ask you to do or challenge you to do first is to question your predefined notions of the art of the possible. Imagine a world where every individual person on earth was able to engage in an active and dynamic precision health, digital first healthcare and life sciences infrastructure. Imagine if that capability were able to be brought equitably to all people in the world and to be able to be sustainably financed and to operate in an environmentally sustainable manner with transparency, accountability, fairness, safety, and privacy preservation as key principles for those capabilities for all people in the world. That is the reality that is now no longer science fiction, but available to us as humanity if we are able to coordinate our actions effectively. The Sustainable Development Goals 17 dealing with partnerships for the achievement of all of the other goals is the heart of what we can accomplish together by organizing and delivering assurance and trust to incorporate blockchain infrastructures, blockchain applications, and the principles of what is referred to as Web3 that empower the sovereignty, agency, dignity, and privacy of all people. The ability to organize public-private partnerships, which are the part of SDG 17 is the single largest breakthrough that could have an exponential force multiplying effect across all global efforts for SDGs 1 through 16. There have been significant pieces of progress on SDG 17. We have seen improved allocation of capital into emerging economies. We have seen advancements in private sector participation, including in global health scenarios. But we have had major blockers to the actual affecting of operational public-private partnerships. What we have managed to do so far is to improve the execution and build capacity for individual siloed attempts, each with their own capital flows, their own allocation of resources. We have the opportunity to move those individual siloed activities occurring in jurisdictions all around the world and introduce the creation of timelines while improving data integrity and scientific integrity through the incorporation of blockchain and web3 technologies and the exponential technologies with which it is converging, including ethical and responsible decentralized AI and the use of extensive and advanced privacy enhancing technologies to protect the agency and dignity of all people. We believe, and I believe in my work, that blockchain technologies must be the foundation of the envisioned public-private partnerships to move those to collective action that can span multiple jurisdictions with jurisdiction-specific compliance and cultural sensitivity. We have major opportunities that are enabled by blockchain, such as the advancement of precision health, including precision population health, using digital twins, the combination of personal AI agents that can be trustworthy and incorporate proof of humanity, all the way to the ability to identify, verify, and authenticate every single data-driven transaction that happens in a massively n-dimensional, multifactorial, multi-party computing environment. Until we are able to collaboratively compute across the many sectors and stakeholders involved in fulfilling public-private partnerships for global health and social services and health equity aims, we will not be able to have capital-efficient, transparent, and globally scalable outcomes. We have the radical potential to decentralize clinical research, driving diversity and inclusion in research subjects, the field of decentralized science, meeting decentralized finance, meeting decentralized physical infrastructure, and those, that capabilities stack being brought into public and private partnerships is extremely powerful. And then the capability to network access to public health, protected health information, including very, very sensitive information, such as genomic data, biometric data, in a way that does not require that data to be moved, exposed, centralized, taken out of the boundary from within which it was organized. This means that in these new infrastructures, we can have completely cryptographic. verifiable, real-world, real-time evidence so that humanity can address our emergencies, our inequities, and realize our vision of faster miracles for all people who are currently suffering from many, many diseases and many profound health disparities. The Government Blockchain Association and the Blockchain Assurance and Standardization Dynamic Coalition’s blockchain maturity model is absolutely fundamental to realizing this vision. While the adoption of blockchain and Web3 technologies, primitives, ethics is necessary, it is not sufficient. Simply utilizing those technologies generally, absent any system that the world can trust about the degree of trustworthiness, legitimacy, technological and operational and governance fairness is a non-starter. So, our work in this dynamic coalition is to not only drive to practical real-world adoption, but to do so within systems of assurance, trust, and standardization that can annul an exponential scaling effect to occur, not at the end of our lifetimes or in generations to follow, but in the next five years. The, we have a remarkable opportunity here to move from processes of stakeholder engagement and consensus building, which is very important, into the resource allocation of large-scale transnational public-private partnerships that will execute pilot programs. An important element of this is not simply to operationalize the use of these technologies, it is also critical to select those technologies. technologies that have been through the blockchain maturity model assessment process, and that will enable all of us to fund parallel, rigorous scientific research, not only technical validation, but clinical validation is absolutely necessary that we can demonstrate the population health and health equity and other endpoints that are so vital to the future of humanity. Those that scientific research needs to have an assertive and continuous publication of peer reviewed evidence. And we have a tremendous opportunity to move from to move from, let’s say an advocacy basis for the adoption of technology to instead a translational mindset for evidence based policy and evidence based scaling of solutions. Together working in this dynamic coalition, we can form the capital structure, the transparent governance processes to bring SDG 17 to a full state of revitalization and a realization of the true intent of active collaboration using collaborative governance technology that can only be brought about. So with that, I thank you very much and thank you to consider supporting moving to production and funding the research necessary to do this in an evidence based way. Thank you.

Dino Cataldo DellAccio: Thank you. Amazing, amazing insights from Heather from the United States, really a very good points that lighting our day. Before going to Priya, I would like to go to Adil for his presentation as the order. So if you would like, please control to have the presentation back for Dr. Adil.

Dr. Adel El-Mesiri: Yes, thank you very much. get the clicker and one advantage of Speaking a lot is knowing how to condense your talk. So I’m gonna try to do it in less than 10 minutes So that to wake you up So I am also not only a member of the GBE but I’m also board member in the Nashville Entrepreneur Center 14,000 entrepreneurs 400 million in revenue that went through and And one thing that I learned out of those is the creating the community the value of creating a vibrant community That allows you to work together. So today I’m going to present to you a framework that allows us not only to Help usher a new age in AI But also how do we could the need govern and work through it in a manner that is actual set and actual Applicable systems, so If you can how do you go back How’d you go back Okay, perfect so You have to ask yourself with every new technology Yeah, I am with every new technology. You have to ask yourself How With every new technology you have to ask yourself, where is the value I have been Talking at the World Economic Forum in the West for years and with every new technology, you always get this wave of People hyping it and then getting to rename it An anecdote of that is that there is a company change their name from the tea company in the tea blockchain company and their stock Tripled. So how do we combat that in? AI as it’s starting to grow. That’s what gave a rise to the artificial intelligence value protocol So So today, in recent years, you have all been familiar with the rise of AI and how it is prevalent through our everyday life. And me, as being a PhD in AI, I can’t be more ecstatic to see all of this event happening here. And His Excellency, the Minister of Education, dedicated his entire presentation in the opening to AI and how we bring AI. Worldwide, there are today 70,000 companies that actually are incorporated to work on AI. If you think that’s a lot, just wait a few more years. This will be 700,000 companies working on it. Estimates of the impact of AI on the global GDP is somewhere between $15 and $20 trillion of new added value to the international GDP. But this does not come without its own problems. So there are a lot of things that we need to take care of, things like ethical use of AI. How do we avoid biases that happen in AI? Because AI is created by data. Data shapes how the AI thinks. So if we have our own biases within the data that we feed AI, the AI will have the same biases in those. Things like the fraudulent practices, companies claiming that they have a new AI, but they are basically creating a wrapper around Chad GPT and such, so you don’t know how it is fitting to your actual need. And where is the incentivization for all of them to work together? So that’s one important piece that the AI value protocol is trying to address. And taking a page from the GBA BMM model, the AIVP is basically designed so that it can perform two major tasks. One is technical verification and financial certification, each one of them with three levels. And all of that stuff is backed to a blockchain network, allowing the immutability of the transactions that happen there, meaning that if you are an AI project and you register on the platform, now we can track all your value that you provide, as well as verify your systems, both financially and technically. And once that all is set up on an immutable blockchain, we’ll be able of creating a value-based AI marketplace, meaning a marketplace that allows you to discover AI, invest in AI, work in an AI, engage in AI, all governed by the use of a blockchain. So how is that possible? Well, it’s possible by creating a tokenomics underneath it. What does that have to do with it? It’s just like what His Excellency mentioned about signal-to-noise ratio. So we put a certain barrier to remove the noise in the market. AI projects claim that they have delivered value. We ask them to provide that value and pay a fee for that. And that’s then used to power the tokenomics underneath the protocol itself. And then, on top of that, we have created something called proof-of-stake verifiers that has not one, but three published academically peer-reviewed papers on it, which basically, in a nutshell, ensures that there are validators that validate the AI project, not based on the project’s data by itself, but also pair the client’s data. So if you are a client looking to use an AI, you can provide your data set to the verifiers. We have a consensus mechanism, so at least three or more have to pick it up. And then they test it, they write a report on it, and get in consensus. What’s in it for the verifiers? Well, that verification request is usually associated with. a monetary reward so they do the work in order for them to receive the rewards for the verification but at the back end you as the user will be able of getting an unbiased independent report of the AI before you actually use it which is a critical part of what we are trying to create here. So and we have also added into the system the ability for it to have arbitration requests meaning if you think your work is right but others colluded together you can file for an AR in the system to allow it to be re-examined. So in all of that what I am trying to say here is that we are stepping into a new brave world that will have not tens of different AIs but hundreds of thousands of different AIs. We are getting into a world that will utilize asianic swarms which is little agents that work on different smaller systems like phones and laptops and so forth that are trying to work together and it is quintessential that we would create a framework that allows us to be able of discovering those creating an immutable record for them and help them to work together so that we can promote the good ethical use of AI versus unethical use of AI or having it rampant as the wild wild west. So with that I’d like to thank you for listening to me and note on the record that I only took eight minutes in my presentation.

Dino Cataldo DellAccio: Thank you so much Dr. Adel. Yeah with that this is very informative Dr. Adel. Thank you so much. We have the questions for you afterward. Now I will go to Priya. Sorry Priya we’ll go back to you finally. So Priya if you would like to share your screen and before Priya please let me let me just introduce Dr. Anne. Dr. Anne I don’t have words to talk about you. If you would like just to jump in and introduce yourself for us. If you can hear us Dr. Anne. She’s not in the zoom. Okay not in the zoom call now. Priya you go ahead.

Priya Guliani: Perfect, can you hear me?

Dino Cataldo DellAccio: Yes.

Priya Guliani: Hello, everyone, once again, it’s an absolute honor to speak at the IGF today on such a critical and timely theme, the internet we want and can trust. And I’m going to talk about the role of identity in it. Identity is central to trust, but trust is the cornerstone of the internet we envision for the future, yet we find ourselves in an age of rising data breaches, identity theft and privacy concern that erode this trust. The question before us is not just how to rebuild this trust, but how to empower each individual and organization to sustain it. And I believe the answer lies in identity, but not as we know it today. So the role of identity in a trust for the internet is really fundamental to almost every interaction online, whether we are accessing a service, making a transaction or even expressing an opinion, our identities form the bridge of trust between us and the digital world. However, the current centralized models of identity management have left us vulnerable. Our personal data is scattered across platforms often without our knowledge or even control, leading to exploitation, breaches and mistrust. Compounding all of these vulnerabilities, emerging technologies like AI and the looming challenge of quantum computing threaten to reshape the landscape of identity risk. Malak already talked about Willow and AI driven cyber attacks are becoming more sophisticated, integrating centralized databases with precision and exploiting gaps in security to commit large scale identity frauds. Meanwhile, quantum computing could render current encryption methods obsolete, exposing identity systems to unprecedented vulnerability. And to address all of these challenges, the Internet, we must build on the system designed to withstand these future threats. Systems where identity is decentralized, encrypted, safeguarded against both today’s as well as tomorrow’s adversaries. So when we look at it, decentralized identity would become the foundation of such a system combining user empowerment with cutting edge technology like blockchain to create trust in a rapidly evolving digital world. And with that, we’re going to explore decentralized identity a little bit more in detail. I call it the future of trust. Decentralized identity, the future of trust. It reimagines the way we own, control, and share our data. Built on decentralized technologies, it places individuals at the center, allowing them to own their identity, control access to their data, and decide when, how, and with whom we want to share that data. It eliminates reliance on intermediaries, enhancing security, privacy, and user agency. Decentralized identity represents a paradigm shift in the realization of digital human rights as well. If you think about it, by putting individuals at the center of their identity journey, it empowers them to reclaim control over their personal data, ensuring it is used only with their informed consent. This is particularly transformative for historically marginalized groups. So if we think about it, decentralized identity could be particularly transformative for historically marginalized groups, such as unbanked populations, refugees, and those underserved communities, as it provides them with digital tools to participate in the global economy and access the essential services that we all need. Also, the decentralized model directly addresses the challenges posed by emerging threats like AI and quantum computing. The decentralized identity system leverages advanced cryptography and privacy-preserving techniques to ensure that identity data remains secure and inaccessible to unauthorized entities, even in the face of AI-powered attacks. Now if we think about it, with the integration of quantum-resistant cryptographic algorithms, decentralized solutions could be built to withstand the quantum computing era, ensuring long-term protection. And all we are looking at is how do we move beyond the vulnerabilities of centralized systems, build a framework where trust is distributed, privacy is protected, and individuals regain control. So if we summarize, this isn’t just a technological leap, it’s a foundational shift and internet that we can trust, which is resilient, again, present, as well as future threats. If I can talk about Earth IDEA a little bit now, we’ve taken this vision a step further. We are proud to be the first and the only decentralized identity or an identity company which has been assessed by blockchain maturity model.

Dino Cataldo DellAccio: Okay, Bria, if you can hear me, we have only five minutes remaining of this session through all the audience, but I would like to thank you so much for your presentation. It was really impressive. And as you say, blockchain is an infrastructure technology, and we need a lot of regulation to do this, such kind of identity, decentralized identity management. With that, I would like to go to Mai. This is our last presentation, just five minutes. Mai, go ahead, please, if you please can share your presentation. Thank you so much, Bria.

Audience: Hi, everyone. Sorry, the session is running late. I want to talk to you today about how blockchain and emerging technologies can really transform the landscape of global wellness. We tried to go really fast. So I’ll talk about that through our Innovation Network Canada flagship initiative that we call Healthcare Without Borders, or Innovation Without Borders, through Innovation Without Borders. We’re just very quickly about the organization. We’re all about taking a holistic approach, taking a holistic approach to innovation and solving. We’re focused on solving pressing global challenges using holistic innovation right now and with measurable impact using responsible and ethical solutions, interdisciplinary solutions. So a little bit about healthcare right now. It’s quite concerning. These are just some of the stats that tell you a little bit about the current state of healthcare on a global level. The demand for healthcare is skyrocketing. Supply is not catching up to this. Meanwhile, we have lives that are lost and costs skyrocketing. Some stats, half the global deaths are preventable, according to WHO. And 50% of the population do not have access to healthcare. 100 million people every single year are pushed to extreme poverty because of healthcare costs. And finally, inefficiencies in healthcare just in the U.S. cost a trillion dollars every single year. So we’re focused on exactly addressing these challenges using transformative tech. such as blockchain, AI, and quantum computing. These are our projects within the initiative are focused on prevention, personalization, inclusivity, and efficiency. Very quickly, these are the top five projects that we’re working on right now. Blockchain is an essential part of these projects. One of them is providing primary care everywhere in the world, leaving no one behind using economic and effective seamless solutions. Virtual hospital beds, since this is a global problem, a lot of hospitals are running out of beds. Project number three is focused on using quantum-inspired algorithms along with smart textiles to address the global crisis and heart disease. So how can we prevent heart disease, which contributes to 30% of the global deaths every single year, and heart disease is mostly preventable. Number four is developing, using quantum biology, diabetes treatments for, and in this project, we’re working with one of the First Nations in British Columbia, Canada, who, this is an indigenous community. People there do not make it past the age of 60 years old because of diabetes, and we’re not able to address this issue at this point for some reason. So we’re developing, in partnership with the Quantum Biology Institute, therapeutic for diabetes, and blockchain, again, here is an essential part because indigenous communities in Canada have, they’re very particular with data privacy as their data previously gotten misused. Finally, we’re developing a personalized health information system, and I’m gonna talk about it a little bit more. So, call it HealthONE. So this is an AI-based system and blockchain-enabled system. personalized health information system that has a few aspects. One of them is operationally eliminates wasted resources and so on, clinical decision support to empower both patients and consumers with their health. And sorry, some of the slides are not coming properly here. Telehealth and IoT and wearables. And you can see from how these technologies, how much the potential for saving here. So AI and quantum tools that we have, they have the potential to save $1.5 trillion plus millions of lives every year. Blockchain can allow us to aggregate data in one spot, give people data, power over ownership for their data, and the ability to decide who can use the data and so on. Saving billions, and it will allow us to save billions in data breaches and interoperability. Telehealth will allow us to save, handle 71% of hospital visits, doctor visits, saving $200 billion. IoT and wearables actually will have the potential of saving $2.1 trillion for remote monitoring. So I just wanna give you a very quickly here an example, just a use case study of, imagine this, somebody lives in a remote community, they’re wearing smart clothing. When I say smart clothing, it’s simply a shirt or undershirt or chest band and anomalies get detected without them even knowing. So by the way, about half the population, they get cardiac events without even knowing. Some of them become serious, some don’t. So your phone will detect anomalies. Then some questions will pop up on your phone, ask you, provide a diagnosis based on what you’re saying and the biometrics that are being sent, a report, go to your doctor, you get seen using telehealth and so on.

Dino Cataldo DellAccio: This is what it is, May.

Audience: All right.

Dino Cataldo DellAccio: Thank you, everyone. Thank you. If you want to get involved in anything, please send me an email. Thank you so much, May. You’re already on time, but the organizers asked us to finish. Do you have any time for questions or no? No questions for the audience? Nothing? That’s it. All right. Thank you so much for being with us. Thank you, the guys online, Gerard and the team. We appreciate this opportunity to be speaking with you on the IJF. If you have any questions, we’ll take it offline. Thank you.

Agreement Points

Blockchain technology has transformative potential in healthcare

Heather Leigh Flannery

Audience

Dr. Adel Elmessiry

Blockchain enables decentralized clinical research and health data sharing

AI and blockchain can transform global wellness and healthcare delivery

AI value protocol for verifying and incentivizing AI projects in healthcare

Multiple speakers emphasized the potential of blockchain to revolutionize healthcare through improved data sharing, research, and AI integration.

Need for standardization and governance in blockchain adoption

Heather Leigh Flannery

Dino Cataldo DellAccio

Blockchain maturity model essential for trustworthy adoption

Dynamic coalition on blockchain assurance and standardization

Speakers agreed on the importance of standardization and governance frameworks for ensuring trustworthy adoption of blockchain technologies.

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized the need for advanced cryptography and governance frameworks to address future security challenges, including quantum computing threats.

Malak Trabelsi-Loeb

Priya Guliani

Need for quantum-resilient cryptography and governance frameworks

Blockchain-based identity systems enhance security and privacy

Unexpected Consensus

Blockchain’s potential to empower marginalized groups

Priya Guliani

Heather Leigh Flannery

Decentralized identity empowers marginalized groups

Blockchain enables decentralized clinical research and health data sharing

While focusing on different aspects (identity and healthcare), both speakers highlighted blockchain’s potential to empower underserved populations, showing an unexpected consensus on the technology’s social impact.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The main areas of agreement included blockchain’s transformative potential in healthcare, the need for standardization and governance in blockchain adoption, and the importance of addressing future security challenges.

Consensus level

Moderate consensus was observed among speakers, particularly on the potential benefits of blockchain technology in various sectors. This level of agreement suggests a growing recognition of blockchain’s importance across different fields, which could accelerate its development and adoption. However, the diversity of specific use cases and approaches discussed indicates that the field is still evolving, with room for multiple perspectives and solutions.

Different Viewpoints

Approach to addressing quantum computing threats

Malak Trabelsi-Loeb

Priya Guliani

Need for quantum-resilient cryptography and governance frameworks

Blockchain-based identity systems enhance security and privacy

While both speakers acknowledge the threat of quantum computing, Malak emphasizes the need for new cryptography and governance frameworks, while Priya focuses on blockchain-based identity systems as a solution.

Unexpected Differences

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement revolve around the specific applications and priorities of blockchain technology in various sectors, particularly in addressing quantum computing threats and healthcare innovations.

difference_level

The level of disagreement among speakers is relatively low. Most speakers present complementary rather than conflicting views, focusing on different aspects of blockchain applications. This suggests a multifaceted approach to blockchain implementation across various sectors, which could lead to more comprehensive solutions but may also require careful integration of different perspectives in policy-making and standardization efforts.

Partial Agreements

Both speakers agree on the potential of blockchain in healthcare, but Heather focuses on decentralized research and data sharing, while Adel emphasizes AI project verification and incentivization.

Heather Leigh Flannery

Dr. Adel Elmessiry

Blockchain enables decentralized clinical research and health data sharing

AI value protocol for verifying and incentivizing AI projects in healthcare

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized the need for advanced cryptography and governance frameworks to address future security challenges, including quantum computing threats.

Malak Trabelsi-Loeb

Priya Guliani

Need for quantum-resilient cryptography and governance frameworks

Blockchain-based identity systems enhance security and privacy

Key Takeaways

Blockchain technology is seen as foundational for building trust in various domains including healthcare, identity management, and AI governance

Quantum computing poses potential threats to current blockchain cryptography, necessitating quantum-resilient solutions

Decentralized identity systems powered by blockchain can enhance security, privacy and empower marginalized groups

Blockchain and AI have significant potential to transform healthcare delivery and improve global wellness

Standardization and governance frameworks are crucial for responsible adoption of blockchain and emerging technologies

Resolutions and Action Items

Develop and implement a quantum governance model using AI, blockchain and quantum simulations

Utilize the blockchain maturity model for assessing trustworthiness of blockchain projects

Create a value-based AI marketplace governed by blockchain for verifying and incentivizing AI projects

Implement decentralized identity solutions to enhance trust in digital interactions

Unresolved Issues

Specific regulatory frameworks needed for decentralized identity management

Detailed implementation plans for the proposed quantum governance model

Concrete steps for global adoption of blockchain-based healthcare solutions

Addressing potential ethical concerns in AI and blockchain convergence

Suggested Compromises

None identified

Trust systems, people, or technology? And this is a question for the audience. Expert opinion. Good one. Should we say it is consistency or reliability or transparency? Maybe all of them. That’s what is blockchain about.

speaker

Malak Trabelsi-Loeb

reason

This comment challenges the audience to think critically about the foundations of trust in technology and introduces blockchain as a potential solution encompassing multiple aspects of trust.

impact

It set the stage for a deeper discussion on blockchain’s role in building trust and security in digital systems.

The quantum governance model, it’s, it’s feasible and actionable framework, it is it is resting on adaptability. So we adapt and we don’t react.

speaker

Malak Trabelsi-Loeb

reason

This introduces a novel concept of governance that is proactive rather than reactive, specifically designed for emerging technologies.

impact

It shifted the conversation from discussing problems to proposing solutions, encouraging others to think about proactive governance models.

Imagine a world where every individual person on earth was able to engage in an active and dynamic precision health, digital first healthcare and life sciences infrastructure.

speaker

Heather Leigh Flannery

reason

This comment paints a visionary picture of global healthcare empowered by blockchain and AI, challenging participants to think on a grand scale.

impact

It broadened the scope of the discussion from technical aspects to the potential societal impacts of blockchain in healthcare.

The Government Blockchain Association and the Blockchain Assurance and Standardization Dynamic Coalition’s blockchain maturity model is absolutely fundamental to realizing this vision.

speaker

Heather Leigh Flannery

reason

This comment connects the theoretical possibilities to practical implementation through standardization and assurance models.

impact

It grounded the discussion in concrete actions and frameworks, moving from vision to potential execution.

Decentralized identity represents a paradigm shift in the realization of digital human rights as well.

speaker

Priya Guliani

reason

This comment reframes the discussion of decentralized identity from a technical innovation to a human rights issue.

impact

It elevated the conversation to consider the broader societal implications of blockchain technology, particularly for marginalized groups.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by progressively moving from theoretical concepts of trust and governance in blockchain to practical applications in healthcare and identity management. They consistently pushed the conversation to consider broader implications beyond just technology, touching on themes of global equity, human rights, and proactive governance. This approach helped to paint a comprehensive picture of blockchain’s potential impact across multiple sectors and its role in addressing complex global challenges.

How can we create a governance framework that is adaptable to multiple disruptive technologies?

speaker

Malak Trabelsi-Loeb

explanation

This is important to proactively address challenges posed by emerging technologies like quantum computing, AI, and blockchain.

How can we implement the quantum governance model in practice?

speaker

Malak Trabelsi-Loeb

explanation

Understanding the practical implementation is crucial for moving from concept to reality in governing disruptive technologies.

How can we create capital structures and transparent governance processes to fully realize SDG 17?

speaker

Heather Leigh Flannery

explanation

This is critical for enabling effective public-private partnerships and achieving global health and social service goals.

How can we fund and conduct rigorous scientific research to validate blockchain and AI technologies in healthcare?

speaker

Heather Leigh Flannery

explanation

Evidence-based validation is necessary to demonstrate the effectiveness of these technologies in improving population health and health equity.

How can we create a framework to discover, create immutable records for, and promote ethical use of the many AI systems being developed?

speaker

Dr. Adel Elmessiry

explanation

This is essential for managing the proliferation of AI technologies and ensuring their responsible use.

How can decentralized identity systems be made resilient against future threats like quantum computing?

speaker

Priya Guliani

explanation

Ensuring long-term protection of identity systems is crucial for maintaining trust in the digital world.

How can blockchain and emerging technologies be leveraged to address global healthcare challenges like preventable deaths and lack of access?

speaker

Audience

explanation

This research is important for developing innovative solutions to improve global health outcomes and reduce healthcare costs.

Summary

This discussion focused on the role and impact of National and Regional Internet Governance Initiatives (NRIs) in shaping internet governance and the multi-stakeholder model. Panelists from various regions shared their experiences and challenges in implementing NRIs. Key themes included the importance of capacity building, inclusivity, and addressing region-specific issues.

Speakers highlighted the diversity of NRIs across regions, from the MENA region’s focus on basic infrastructure to Europe’s emphasis on consensus-building. The African continent was noted for its vibrant youth engagement and capacity-building efforts. The Asia-Pacific region stressed the need for inclusivity and representation of diverse stakeholders.

Challenges discussed included financial sustainability, government engagement, and adapting to local contexts. The importance of multilingualism and addressing the needs of small island developing states was emphasized. Participants also noted the role of NRIs in informing national policies and contributing to global discussions.

The discussion touched on the upcoming WSIS+20 review and the Global Digital Compact, with many emphasizing the need to strengthen the multi-stakeholder model and secure a longer-term mandate for the IGF. Speakers stressed the importance of NRIs in localizing global principles and providing grassroots input to international processes.

Overall, the session underscored the critical role of NRIs in fostering inclusive dialogue, building capacity, and addressing local and regional internet governance challenges while contributing to the global internet governance ecosystem.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– The importance of national and regional Internet Governance Forum (IGF) initiatives in bringing local issues and perspectives to the global level

– Challenges faced by IGF initiatives, including funding, sustainability, and engaging all stakeholders (especially governments)

– The role of IGFs in capacity building, especially for youth and underrepresented groups

– How IGFs can contribute to the Global Digital Compact and WSIS+20 review process

– The need to strengthen and evolve the multi-stakeholder model of Internet governance

The overall purpose of this discussion was to highlight the crucial role that national, regional and youth IGF initiatives play in the Internet governance ecosystem. It aimed to showcase the diversity of these initiatives around the world and how they contribute to shaping Internet policy discussions at all levels.

The tone of the discussion was largely positive and collaborative, with participants enthusiastically sharing their experiences and achievements. There was also a sense of urgency in addressing challenges and strengthening the IGF model for the future. The tone became more forward-looking towards the end, with calls to action for the upcoming WSIS+20 review process.

Speakers

– Jennifer Chung: Secretary of the Forum of Asia and Africa, Moderator

– Chafic Chaya: Chair of the Lebanon IGF, part of Arab IGF

– Giacomo Mazzone: Part of European Dialogue on Internet Governance (EuroDIG) and Italian IGF, Secretary General of Eurovision

– Lillian Nalwoga: From the African IGF

– Amrita Choudhury: Part of India IGF, Chair of APR IGF Multistakeholder Steering Group

– Charles Noir: From CIRA and part of Canada IGF

– Lilian Chamorro Rojas: From IGF (region not specified)

– Pedro Lana: Online moderator

Additional speakers:

– Bertrand de La Chapelle: Executive Director of the Internet and Jurisdiction Policy Network, Co-initiator of EuroDIG and French IGF

– Phyo Thiri L.: Co-coordinator of YIGF Myanmar and South Asia YIGF

– Andrew Molivurae: Representing regulators office in Vanuatu, Chair of Pacific IGF

– Jasmine Ko: From Hong Kong YIGF

– Nigel Hickson: Member of the UK IGF

– Ahmed Farag: Chair of the North African IGF

– Mery Henrica: IGF fellow from Timor-Leste

– Nazar Nicholas Kirama: From Tanzania IGF

– Sumeet Bhoite: Online participant

– Annalise Williams: 2024 Chair of the Australian Internet Governance Forum

Revised Summary of National and Regional Internet Governance Forum (NRIs) Initiatives Discussion

Evolution of Internet Governance and Multi-stakeholder Model

The discussion highlighted the transformation of internet governance towards a multi-stakeholder model across various regions. Chafic Chaya noted this shift in the MENA region, while Giacomo Mazzone emphasized European institutions’ promotion of consensus-building and multi-stakeholder approaches. Lillian Nalwoga highlighted capacity building initiatives driving multi-stakeholder engagement in Africa. Amrita Choudhury stressed the need for diverse stakeholder inclusion in the Asia-Pacific region, given its vast diversity. Charles Noir underscored the model’s crucial role in the internet’s technical operation, while Lilian Chamorro Rojas emphasized local and regional IGFs’ contributions to global internet governance.

Challenges and Opportunities for NRIs

Several challenges and opportunities for NRIs were identified:

1. Financial Sustainability: Ahmed Farag highlighted significant financial obstacles in sustaining NRI operations.

2. Stakeholder Engagement: Jasmine Ko reported difficulties in engaging government stakeholders, contrasting with Charles Noir’s perspective on NRIs’ value in informing national policymaking.

3. Regional Specific Challenges: Andrew Molivurae emphasized the need for disaster response policy frameworks, while the Phyo Thiri L. noted challenges in fostering youth collaboration across South Asia.

4. Outcome Tracking: Lillian Nalwoga stressed the importance of tracking outcomes from NRI meetings to demonstrate their impact.

5. Multilingualism: Amrita Choudhury highlighted the challenge of addressing multiple languages in internet governance discussions.

Regional Perspectives

The discussion showcased diverse regional perspectives:

1. MENA Region: Chafic Chaya noted the establishment of the Saudi Arabia IGF as a new initiative.

2. Africa: Lillian Nalwoga emphasized the importance of involving legislators and parliamentarians in discussions.

3. Asia-Pacific: Amrita Choudhury highlighted the region’s vast diversity and its impact on internet governance approaches.

4. Pacific Islands: Andrew Molivurae discussed the Pacific IGF’s theme of “strengthening digital governance, resilience and resilience” and the use of Starlink technology in disaster response.

5. Europe: Giacomo Mazzone highlighted the promotion of consensus-building and multi-stakeholder approaches by European institutions.

Capacity Building and Schools of Internet Governance

Multiple speakers emphasized the importance of capacity building initiatives and schools of internet governance in fostering understanding and participation in internet governance processes. These efforts were seen as crucial for developing informed stakeholders and promoting inclusive dialogue across regions.

Future of the IGF and Internet Governance

The discussion looked towards the future of the IGF and internet governance:

1. Global Digital Compact: Giacomo Mazzone suggested that the IGF should support its implementation.

2. WSIS+20 Review: Speakers viewed this as an opportunity to strengthen the IGF mandate and renew commitment to multi-stakeholderism. The Australian IGF’s position statement on WSIS+20 was highlighted as an example of NRI input.

3. IGF Mandate: Nigel Hickson called for a longer mandate for the UN IGF, beyond 10-20 years.

4. Role of IGF: The IGF was highlighted as a key platform for discussing digital policy issues beyond WSIS.

5. NRI Formalization: Andrew Molivurae suggested formalizing NRIs to align with the global IGF.

Key Takeaways and Action Items

1. Strengthen the multi-stakeholder model for effective internet governance.

2. Better integrate NRIs into global processes.

3. Address capacity building and inclusivity challenges, especially in developing regions.

4. Tackle financial sustainability concerns for NRI initiatives.

5. Leverage the WSIS+20 review to reinforce commitment to multi-stakeholderism and the IGF.

6. Engage NRIs in consultation on the future institutional structure of the IGF.

7. Recognize and formalize NRIs in the WSIS+20 resolution.

8. Develop mechanisms to track outcomes from NRI meetings.

9. Increase support for policy frameworks on disaster response in Pacific islands.

10. Improve the capacity of the IGF secretariat, as suggested by Wisdom Donkor.

11. Address the challenge of multilingualism in internet governance discussions.

Conclusion

The discussion underscored the crucial role of NRIs in the internet governance ecosystem, highlighting their importance in bringing local perspectives to global discussions, building capacity, and informing policy. While challenges remain, particularly in terms of financial sustainability and stakeholder engagement, there is a strong consensus on the value of the multi-stakeholder model and the need to strengthen and evolve it for the future of internet governance. The diverse regional perspectives and experiences shared during the discussion demonstrate the richness and complexity of the global internet governance landscape, emphasizing the need for continued dialogue and collaboration across all stakeholder groups.

Jennifer Chung: Hello and welcome everyone. Here is the latest initiative on youth, the growing role of the IRN. My name is Jennifer Chung. I am the secretary of the Forum of Asia and Africa. I have the honor of moderating this session, the development and evolution of Internet governance and the multiparty model has been marked by important processes and initiatives such as the World Net and the World Digital Pact. All these efforts have played a crucial role in the definition of Internet and digital governance in general, by promoting collaboration between the various parties and by promoting the multiparty model. At the local level, our essential for the overall effectiveness and continuous adaptation and improvement and evolution in the multistakeholder practices as we know it. Through exchanges in the community, we have gathered over 174 national regional initiatives. This panel will address the pivotal discourse that happen at these local grassroots level and how this has shaped the evolution of Internet governance and the multistakeholder model. We have with us here an illustrious panel and more online and in the room as well who will bring you through all of the good discourses by each region, by each initiative. A little bit of housekeeping. Of course, with the diversity of our panelists and also speakers, please do remember to use your headset. I will now turn to our first esteemed speaker. I will give you a moment to put on your headset. From the home region that we are here, in the MENA region, I am honored to introduce Mr. Chafic Chaya, chair of the Lebanon IGF and also part of Arab IGF. In the 20 years of WSIS, where do we stand with respect to Internet governance processes and the multistakeholder approach?

Chafic Chaya: Thank you, Jennifer. Thank you. Good afternoon. So, I speak in Arabic. Peace be upon you. I’m honored to be part of this discussion today and to share with you the important role played by the National Regional Initiatives, NRIs, in discussing intergovernance in the MENA region. This is not just a narrative about governance. It is a transformational story and development story, while the MENA region is witnessing a notable transformation from conventional governance into multi-stakeholder governance model should focus on the conclusiveness and flexibility and cooperation. The global OASIS has laid the foundation through the governance principles of multi-stakeholder and the different national initiatives and regional initiatives has localized these principles and harmonized it to fit with the needs of the region. This region is not just atop these frameworks, rather it has innovated to cope and to amend it according to the needs of our communities. What really inspires us today is that how this dealing between the conventional models and the multi-stakeholder model became a major feature of such transformation, such increasing momentum within these governance processes and the United Nations to achieve the balance between two approaches, encourage the stakeholders to adopt innovative governance models with such powers that are not competing anymore. They are integrating and complementing each other. These national initiatives and regional initiatives became major pillars in this process, whereby it plays the bridge which links between the different dialogues. multi-stakeholder dialogues and the high-level decision-making process. This initiative contributes to empower the stakeholders, including the governments, technical community, private sector, academia, civil society, to work effectively to address the national priorities and regional priorities and to achieve the joint and the common goals. The increasing amount of these national and regional initiatives in this region, such as Lebanon Internet Governance Forum and the Arab Governance Forum, or North Africa Internet Governance Forum, and many others, reflects the concern by the stakeholders to promote comprehensive and cooperative governance. Today they will come, including the Saudi Internet Governance Forum, as a new national initiative, which gives more momentum to these different initiatives and promote and push forward the common regional priorities forward. However, such initiatives, national initiatives and regional initiatives, do not work in isolation or in silos. They are complementing initiatives from different stakeholders, such as the activities by the tech community, which is represented by the RICC, ICANN and ISOC. For example, a group of network operators in the MENOC, and we have the Middle East School for MESEC, and we have meetings, roundtable meetings, government roundtable meetings, and the programs designed for the countries according to their needs, and many other initiatives. All brings together the stakeholders to build the capacities through providing the technical expertise and exchange of knowledge. Such activities ensures the integration of technical aspects and personal aspects of the Internet within the global… the global wide discussion about the Internet Governance which promote the ecosystem of the Internet. At the end, while we are looking forward within the 20 years since the organization of the first OASIS, we can today see the progress achieved so far. However, we are still at the beginning of the road to build a framework for the Internet Governance that will be flexible, resilient, inclusive, and ready for the requirements of our digital future. Thank you so much, Jennifer.

Jennifer Chung: Thank you so much, Shafiq. It is so heartening to know that we have now the Saudi Arabia IGF and so much more coming in this MENA region. I think it’s doing a lot to bring the discourse together, bringing the framework together collaboratively, and of course, congratulations again for that. It’s so important for us to remember this is a region that has a lot to offer, a lot of knowledge, a lot of expertise, and the issues crucial to this region can be solved with all these discussions in a multi-stakeholder manner, and going forward inside that kind of framework as well. I’d like to turn now to the Europe region. It’s my honour to introduce Mr Giacomo Mazzone, part of the European Dialogue on Internet Governance, EuroDIG, and also Italian IGF. I know currently we have an ongoing targeted consultation on internet governance targeted by the European Commission. In that context, do you think that the multi-stakeholder approach can pave the way for inclusiveness and internet resilience in times of crisis?

Giacomo Mazzone: Thank you for giving me the floor. I’m a member of the board of EuroDIG, I’m collaborating with the Italian IGF, and I’m Secretary General of Eurovision. All roles that are part of this dialogue that we are constantly doing in Europe. In Europe, after the lesson of the war, we have understood that we cannot go by a single nation, but we need to go through a permanent dialogue. And so we have created two institutions that are pivotal for us. One is the European Union that embraces 27 countries, the other one is the Council of Europe that covers all of Europe. through these two institutions we have learned in the last 60 years that we have to go through consensus and trying to reach common positions. This started in a multilateral way but then since 40 years this has been enlarged by both institutions to civil society, to academia, to industry, to all the components of society because most of the process need to be built on consensus. Thanks to that we are trying to tackle as was the question that how we can, if this help to build internet resilience in time of crisis, for instance we had the European elections in June this year and we were all afraid that could have an impact for the use of the artificial intelligence as a support for disinformation and trying to undermine the credibility of the elections. Then has been put in place a certain number of actions that have been able to give us the possibility to go through this election without so much impact. For instance there is a regulation that says that the platform need to enforce as soon as possible the things when they are signaled that there is something going wrong. So hard regulation is in place. Then there is moral suasion regulation and co-regulation that is the code of practice has been put in place with the platform signed with the European Commission that means that the platform even if there is not a crime that is going on on the platform but there is something that could be harmful they have to behave and cooperate and then there are this is not made by a ministry of truth. but is made in cooperation with fact-checkers that are grassroots organizations and the traditional media that signal when there is a problem and the problem then could be solved. This proved to be an efficient way to work and in fact the attack, there has been many attacks, but there’s been under control and they didn’t harm too much the election. This now currently just to show you one of the model, how it works, the model, we have now to decide as European what will be the European position and the nation that are part of the European Union and the nation that are part of the Council of Europe position in the UN next year for the renewal of the mandate of the IGF and the WSS forum. So, what the Commission has made, there was an initial position of the Council that says we need to have a common position and this principle need to be defended, the multi-stakeholderism, the integration, the cooperation, the non-fragmentation of the Internet, etc. Then a consultation has been launched just three weeks ago and will end mid of January. This consultation is open to all society, all components of society. So at the end of this consultation, the position of the stakeholders will be integrated in a background paper. This paper will be brought to the attention of the institution and then it will be the basis for what the European Union and the single members will vote in the General Assembly. This is the best way we are trying to do in order to be multi-stakeholder and to embrace all voices of the society.

Jennifer Chung: Thank you so much, Giacomo, for giving us the overview. of what the European Commission and also the European community is trying to do, I really like that your emphasis really is to go for consensus and common positions to defend multistakeholderism in the really crucial year ahead when we’re looking towards WSIS plus 20 review. Now I’d like to turn over to the Africa region, always a young and vibrant region. It’s my pleasure to introduce Ms Lillian Nalwoga from the African IGF. With the continent’s point of view, how can internet governance be more useful to all stakeholders so that they identify national regional spaces as a key venue for advocacy? Lillian.

Lillian Nalwoga: Thank you so much Jennifer, it’s a pleasure to be here and to speak about our vibrant continent. Just what I would like to first highlight is, yes the vibrancy comes in the number of initiatives that the continent has been able to achieve. To date we have approximately 36 national initiatives and we have five regional initiatives representing the north, the east, the west, central and south. In all these processes we are seeing the vibrancy of the community, we are seeing the multistakeholder approach coming into play. We are also seeing capacity building. So when we are looking at how can we make stakeholders, how can we utilise internet governance as a space for NRIs to be doing advocacy, I would say this comes from the vibrancy that we are seeing in the communities. But the one thing that has been able to be identified is the need for capacity building. building, and what we’ve seen is we’ve seen quite a number of regional schools, national schools, and continental schools. I think at the regional level, every regional IGF within Africa has a school on internet governance, and if we’re, that is the beginning point. At the continental level, we do have the Africa school on internet governance, and this has used, has been a space for building capacity of different stakeholders, and it’s not limiting to, say, civil society or academia or private sector or government. It is inclusive, and it follows a bottom-up approach, and what I can say, I’m a beneficiary of the Africa, of the AFRICIC, when it launched in 2013, so you can see where I am today, and we’ve seen quite a number of different stakeholders from government. So, for us to say how can we use this space, first we are looking at capacity building, but the most recent initiative where we saw a gap was in how do we get our legislators to pass inclusive policies and understand, you know, issues on internet governance, and hence the Africa Parliamentary Network on Internet Governance was introduced, and I’m sure there’s quite a big delegation from members of parliament from Africa who have benefited from this. So the approach here we are taking is we need to look at this at all, you know, from different angles. If we are to say that internet governance, the entire ecosystem, how do we start with policy, we build the capacity of the stakeholders, the legislators, but also try to open it up in 4D. different actors. The other thing that I would like to mention is we need to be able to develop and track outcomes. Because when we started many years ago, the internet governance space was looked at as a talk shop where we come and talk things. But recently, we’ve been able to, every meeting produces a key outcome document. I think the next step right now is to be able to track and see how these are being implemented at country level, at regional level. And this will be able to use this space as a key place for advocacy for the different stakeholders in the NRIs. Thank you.

Jennifer Chung: Thank you so much, Lillian. I think you’re doing my job for me, because it’s a beautiful, perfect segue. I really like your emphasis on capacity building. Africa as a continent is young and vibrant. And we need to bring the young people with us. We need to bring other stakeholders who need to be in this space, in the internet governance discussion spaces, digital process discussion spaces, to be able to understand, first, the concerns and the issues from the community, and also what internet governance is all about. Now I’d like to turn over to my home region, Asia Pacific. It’s my honor to introduce Ms. Amrita Choudhury, part of the India IGF and also chair of the APR IGF, Multistakeholder Steering Group. In the APAC context, which voices should be in the model at the national, regional, and I guess local level as well? And how can they be effectively brought in?

Amrita Choudhury: Thank you, Jennifer. And APAC is very huge and diverse, not only in terms of countries, cultures, languages, economies, but also the level of adoption of technology. So if you ask me the question, my first response would be everyone but if I drill it down a bit more I would say every relevant stakeholder who matters for that discussion. So you know I’ll just take a step back and I’ll talk about what APR IGF has been doing is one not just working as the focal point for regional IGF but also to build capacity. For example bringing in more youth. Our fellowship is such that we try to have a better gender balance wherein we have more women coming in because we want and especially from economies which are unrepresented. It could be the Pacifics it could be many many countries from where we can bring. Do note that some countries like Afghanistan we do try to bring out but it’s difficult because of sanctions. We do have some more countries of that kind. We also try the other thing which is important is to assist the national IGFs or youth IGFs in the country and that’s something which we feel is important because you could not only have the discussions at a national level but also get some essence of what is important for that region which can feed in when we decide things especially in APAC in our APR IGFs themes and sub themes and also drill down the important things because for example many times the national IGF for example may not know what the contemporary internet governance discussions globally are which for example the Asia-Pacific regional IGF can know like what’s happening in the GDC which edition of the text is going on what is concerning so we try to demystify those pass it on to the community members who are already involved because we believe the more information you pass on to the communities they would be in a better position to decide. We ask them for inputs. We also, you know, it is also important to encourage the schools of internet governance because that is where people can build their capacity. It’s important that people understand the various nuances. Many times you’ll find the, especially the younger generation, take everything for granted because they’ve got internet technologies on their platter. But what goes behind it is something which they need to know and once people know that why it matters, they start raising their voices. So I think those things are important to increase the reach, create opportunities where they can come and participate, like, for example, giving them the young voices a chance to come and participate and share their views with people who may have been in the community for long without any prejudice or hesitation. I think that’s important. And also disseminating information, just like Lillian was saying, we have, you know, the outcome document which comes out from APRIG, the synthesis document, which we try to circulate to all the economies, hopefully if some regulator, etc., kind of pick it up, and also to build capacity amongst different groups, like it could be parliamentarians, it could be others who actually need to build capacity on these things. So I’ll stop at this. Thanks, Jen.

Jennifer Chung: Thank you so much, Amrita. I think Lillian has started and Amrita has also emphasised the crucial role that schools of Internet governance play as well in order to bring information, build up capacity, impart knowledge, particularly I think I’m going to go back to one small point that’s actually not a small point, a very important point, that Lillian has raised about bringing in the legislators, the parliamentarians, and I know there was a parliamentarian legislator’s track here in Riyadh as well, to have those who are creating policy, making legislation, to make sure that they create inclusive policies, inclusive legislations. And of course, imparting with what Amrita has also… mentioned to create opportunities for every voice that needs to be here at the table. Now I’m going to move to another region, the North America region. It’s my honor to introduce Mr. Charles Noir, CIRA and also part of Canada IGF. How is Internet governance and the multi-stakeholder model evolving from your regional point of view? Charles, please.

Charles Noir: Thank you, Jennifer. First of all, great to be here and with you all in Saudi Arabia and thank you to the hosts for a wonderful meeting. CIRA, for those of you that don’t know, is the Canadian Internet Registration Authority and we’re best known for running the cctld.ca. We do other things, but I won’t get into it. And we have been the main sponsor and secretariat for the Canadian IGF since its beginning in 2019. So I’m sitting on this stage today and coming to you from a technical operator perspective, but talking about the IGF in Canada, of course, it’s multi-stakeholder and that’s where I want to start. It’s really about a community engagement in Canada as it is elsewhere and we’re hearing on the stage. We focus on critical issues that affect the Internet or that the Internet is producing and generally we do that to identify, hopefully, some shared policy positions that we might take away from and at times to understand where different points of view are coming from. There’s very critical discussions going on in Canada as well as in other countries, of course, around the world and globally. We speak about a number of those, cybersecurity, for example, online harms was this year’s focus as well, misinformation, connectivity, all of the topics that we’re covering here, including artificial intelligence, were certainly points that we cover within the IGF space in Canada. And we believe that we’re at an inflection point more generally within the… global internet governance space because of the WSIS Plus 20, because of GDC. Also within Canada, we’re seeing for the first time a whole suite of regulation that will affect the internet. And so we’re really engaging the community across the country from every stakeholder group to try to bring us together to inform and support our policymakers in their decision-making, both within the domestic space but also globally in meetings like this, but also in negotiations like the WSIS Plus 20 and what we’re seeing in GDC. So Canada’s been a proud, huge supporter of the multi-stakeholder model, both as an internet community, collectively all stakeholders, and I believe in our government. We see the WSIS Plus 20 as an opportunity to reinforce and dedicate for the next, hopefully, next 10 years, a commitment to multi-stakeholderism, including, obviously, the IGF. Sure, there’s room for improvement. We want to recognize that the multi-stakeholder governance model today, and the IGF, CIGF being part of that, is the reason why we have an internet that works like it does today from a technical operating perspective. Yes, there are difficulties, we’re encountering them, we’re discussing them, we need to address them, but the reason why I can call someone on the other side of the world and instantaneously connect is because we have the multi-stakeholder model in action governing the technical layer of the internet. We see the CIGF and regional NRIs as really important in terms of supporting governments, national governments. When we see governments engage in internet policy, we believe that the Canadian IGF, for example, will be a source of information, a source of advice and guidance for policymakers making decisions about… these important and crucial next steps in the phase of the Internet and how it’s governed. And from that we really see an opportunity to develop unified policy positions where we can all agree as all stakeholders, academic, private sector, technical community, etc. coming together so that we can focus on what we believe our priorities should be and what our government’s priorities should be in these spaces, particularly within the context of UN decision-making and domestic legislation. I would also like to add that we also see an opportunity within the technical community to organize as a community. The technical community, for example, like all stakeholder communities, is very diverse and we’ve worked with about 29 other technical operators around the world in every continent in coming together in a coalition called the Technical Community Coalition for Multistakeholderism, TCCM, and again we see that as an opportunity to coordinate globally and it brings roots out of the IGF spirit and out of the notion that we’re coming together as a stakeholder group to represent common positions that we believe should be considered in global negotiations. Some of that was exemplified in our input within the GDC context and we will be very active in the WSIS context as well as we move into the WSIS plus 20. In terms, again, I’d like to just focus on the idea that multistakeholderism, the IGF, the regional initiatives really have contributed, I want to leave with this note, really have contributed and are the reason why we have the internet we have today. Again, we have issues, we’re exploring them, we’re discussing them, but fundamentally as a base idea and a base form of governance, this is what we want to see continue, this is what we want to see evolve. The Canadian IGF is committed. that, and certainly we are as a TCCM, as a technical operator.

Jennifer Chung: Thank you so much, Charles. Thank you for also highlighting the crucial role that the technical community plays in actually keeping the Internet on so we can have these discussions. It’s the foundation where we build on all of these myriad of issues when we talk about Internet governance without the Internet actually working. I don’t think we have so much to talk about, right, at this point. For the technical community as well, it is really crucial for them to focus on keeping that the Internet remains open and free, global and secure, resilient, and interoperable, so we can have all of these discussions that we are having right now. And last but not least, I’d like to go to our region, GRULAC region. It’s my honor to introduce Ms. Lillian Chamorro from the IGF. I’ll give everybody a little moment to put on their headsets. So Lillian, what is the impact of NetMundial Plus 10, WSIS Plus 20, and the global digital compact process on Internet governance and the multi-stakeholder model, and how can we use all these principles to advance them?

Lilian Chamorro Rojas: Hola. Bueno, muchas gracias. Thank you. I’m going to speak in Spanish. Thank you so much for the invitation. Thanks Jennifer. Thanks to the Secretariat and all my colleagues present here. We see that WSIS is something we have been talking about lately. Next year in this space, we will define the mandate for the IGF in the next years to come, and we believe that from our point of view in Latin America, we see a real opportunity in front of us because the IGF is a platform that’s allowing us to do follow-ups and a review of all the objectives of the GDC and the action items of the WSIS. And we consider that these two, together with the structures that are being created for the Internet governance in the next few years, can be leveraged to discuss and assess the implementation of the agreements, both in the national and the regional context, as well as global. Having all this clear structure of all the initiatives of governance, right? So we also want to share this experience, this very valuable experience of inviting all the stakeholders to the conversation. The GDC has presented some actionable steps that we can see in the local realities, in the regional and national levels, and when we talk about youth and other communities that are also having the dialogue regarding governance and always focus on the needs of certain communities. And so we are looking at the NRIs, and we’ve seen an increase in the activity in these NRIs, in terms of number of initiatives and number of people who are participating, and we’ve seen this going up and increasing a lot. And we already mentioned this before, and my colleagues also mentioned this, that these contribute for the capacity building, but also in the creation of forums for dialogue and conversation, and also to localize and see what are the needs in every different space, according to different needs and contexts. We think that these spaces contribute also to the deployment. of technologies, because this is when we can see how these technologies are implemented, how they are transformed, how they influence the lives of people, both in a regional and national level, and, of course, also with the focus of the multi-stakeholder approach. We’re not having a bias from one point of view, but we see different points of view. The diversity of initiatives, I think, is something that is very beautiful to see. I see this group of people here in front of me, and all the people who have been sharing space in this IGF, and I really see the beauty in these encounters, in all of us talking about all these transcendental topics, that it’s not only the NRIs, but also having youth as being part of it, the Portuguese speakers, the forum in the Caribbean, that is one of the forums that has been working for the longest, and the commitments to follow the GDC initiatives like in data governance or AI, and other topics related to environment, migration, and other topics that are very related to our context, and these structures are shaped according to the diversity of territories and different communities, so we should appreciate them and leverage them as they are, as a diversity they present. IGFs are a valuable space to have common dialogue, like the WCs and the GDC. We were invited to be creative and find new frameworks, so I want to talk about new world dialogues that are inviting us to have new governance. models and taking this multi-stakeholder models and then having a dialogue so that we create the open collaborative open Internet that we want. These dialogues can be the basis for experimental collaboration and also have this governance framework that can allow us to have a better decision-making, make more concrete proposals and create action steps to advance to the Internet we want and we can overcome the current challenges we face.

Jennifer Chung: Thank you very much Lillian, I think your ending was actually very perfect. To have common dialogue and to celebrate the diversity of inputs we bring from across the entire globe with all of the regions included. Now I started off the session by saying this network, this NRI network is 174 initiatives and counting. There are many in this room, there are many online. We would love to hear from you. So I think we have actually roaming mics in the room, technical persons please indicate if that’s possible, but we would like to open the floor to people who have reactions and also can share what their region, their national initiative is actually doing right now. The impacts of multi-stakeholder processes, dialogue is happening at the local and grassroots level, what they are hoping to achieve especially in terms of input into the WSIS plus 20 review process next year. I think we heard in every single session almost in this Riyadh meeting that there is need to have dialogue, there’s need to have common positions to defend multi-stakeholder processes when we’re talking about internet governance, when we’re talking about digital governance as well. I would like to also introduce, we have our online moderator, Pedro Llana. Pedro will be the person who will be looking at all of our online participants who are probably very involved with the national, regional, and youth initiatives in their home economies as well. So please, Pedro, let me know if there is anything online as well from this NRI network from the greater communities that go to these different meetings, go to these initiatives, or even just tuning in remotely all across the globe to this meeting here in Riyadh. Are we able to hear Pedro? If we’re not able to hear Pedro, I will come back to him, and I’ll actually drill down a little more on what we’ve heard so far on our panelists. Maybe this will inspire more input from those who are actually thinking about what their meetings in their home countries, in their home economies, are actually having. I think that there’s a lot of local issues, a lot of regional issues that are discussed in NRI meetings that sometimes do not make their way all the way to the global IGF at the annual meeting. Of course, it’s always competitive when you’re looking at the scheduling, but is there something that is very unique to your region, perhaps, that you think is very important to bring up to the global level that hasn’t had an opportunity quite yet, especially when we’re looking into WSIS 20 review next year, and also impacting the evolution of how we’re discussing? I don’t know if any of our panelists up here would like to take a stab. Chafic, please.

Chafic Chaya: Thank you, Jennifer. First, thank you for Saudi Arabia and for hosting this IGF in Riyadh. in this region, this is a very important step and this very important initiative to get the IGF to our region to share with the global IGF what the challenges we are facing. As you know, each region has its own challenge. And while the European or the Western countries, they are now looking after AI and looking after in terms of things and smart cities, we are still having some countries in this region, they don’t have the basic infrastructure to connect people. So our priority is to give the connectivity to these people to connect. We know from the ITU that there is still 2.6 billion unconnected people, and most of them are in Africa, which is the region nearby. So the importance of having these events in this region is to get the voices of these countries up to the global level so they can be taken in consideration. Because once again, our challenges is totally different from other countries or other region challenges. Thank you.

Jennifer Chung: Thank you, Chafic. I know that you’ve highlighted that there is still 2.6 billion unconnected. That is a sheer number that, of course, is really also central to the Africa region and also Asia-Pacific region. I don’t know if Amrita would like to expand a little more on that challenge as well when we’re looking at Asia-Pacific.

Amrita Choudhury: Yes, thank you, Jen. I think one beauty of the NRIs is that while there are many issues which may be very endemic to a country or region, but there are challenges in most of the region in some context or form of those. For example, as Shafiq mentioned, access is one. Basic infrastructure, for example, there are countries even, as I mentioned in my initial remark, Asia-Pacific is very diverse. You have extremely developed countries and you have countries where the networks have still not Are not working or cannot work due to sanctions, etc As in they are working but not, you know, and we have the Pacific Islands who have different challenges, you know Because of climate changes, etc. There’s water rising. There are other issues which are happening So it’s in there are different challenges people do bring in but again You know how you have that assimilated is difficult because every region has different issues Access is difficult Multilingualism is important as in if I look at the countries a country like India has 22 official languages Let alone unofficial similarly in many parts of Asia Pacific language is an issue, you know having everything in those languages Access, you know basic access is an issue for people Rights to even access it for example, I’ll come back to Afghanistan Women do not have any rights. Women do not even have right to an internet device That’s a challenge when we are talking about so many things achieving SDG goals. So those are diverse I think we try to bring it up and see what can be done Yeah, so, you know, there are higher level issues and there are deep-rooted issues which needs to be worked like anything

Jennifer Chung: Thank You, I’m Rita. I like that you brought up also Multilingualism as a challenge and also a strength in the diversity of the languages that we’re allowed to speak I know here we have translation in the six UN languages So you heard her speak in Arabic and you heard Lillian being able to speak in in Spanish and for myself I’m very lucky to be able to use my language to speak in Chinese I’m very lucky to be able to use my language Chinese to be able to speak to everyone But that is not the case for every single language that you see on you know that’s represented by the people you see here on the panel and I’m sure many, many more in the audience. I know that we probably in the audience because the light is now shining into my eyes and I cannot see your faces, but there must be many NRI and youth initiatives representatives from Francophonie countries who do have a lot to contribute and input on. And I urge you also to raise your hand if you have inputs that you would like to make during this national regional sub-regional youth initiative main session to share with us your issues and how internet governance and especially the multi-stakeholder process has evolved discussion in your home economies. And of course, we welcome you to speak in your language in French as well. I’d like to now go back again to see if we’re able to unmute Mr. Pedro Lana who is our online moderator.

Pedro Lana: Yes, Jennifer, can you hear me?

Jennifer Chung: Yes, we can hear you Pedro, please go ahead.

Pedro Lana: Perfect. We have two raised hands and one question in the chat in order to alternate between onsite and online questions. I think we can go with Dr. Jimson Olapunha who has his hand raised and then we’ll go to the other questions posed. If there is no onsite question or commenters. Can I go in that direction, Jennifer?

Jennifer Chung: Yes, we can take the online interventions. I see some hands up. So Pedro, I’ll allow you to unmute them or Tech can unmute them and please have your, you can moderate the online inputs, please.

Pedro Lana: Tech, can you unmute Dr. Jimson?

Jennifer Chung: Ah, I see Jimson actually in the room. So, yes, he is online and in the room, which is amazing. and we all are as well. Jimson, please go ahead.

Audience: Good evening, everybody. Good afternoon. And I want to first and foremost say I’m Jimson Olufoye, the Chair of the Advisory Council of Africa ICT Alliance. And I’m a private sector person and I run a private sector concern organization. I want to commend the MAG. The MAG have been doing fantastic work. We really appreciate all your work, all your effort across the world. We appreciate you very much. And Jennifer in particular, your work in IGF-SA, we appreciate it for the global community. I have two questions. The first one is connected with what you mentioned about the Net Mundia multistakeholder guidelines. I want to ask the panel how many of us have been using these guidelines because I believe it has the capacity to ensure that every stakeholder concern is brought to the table. And when we have all stakeholders on the table, we can easily tackle all our societal challenges together. And I’m very happy that the IGF has been very successful in bringing all these together because there will be ownership. Secondly, you also talk about the global digital compact. There are two outcomes of the WSIS 2005 agenda. The first one is the digital compact. The second one is the multistakeholder guidelines. And the third one is the multistakeholder guidelines. And the third one is the multistakeholder that. So, that’s the twin part, AIRS Corporation was only just came to fruition since 2025, since 2005, just September last year, when the global community, the world leaders agreed to the Pact for the Future, wherein we have the Global Data Compact. Excellent. So now, going forward, the question is, from your experiences across the continent, what do you think about how we will proceed to implement the Global Data Compact in our respective regions and countries? Should it be integrated into IGF, because IGF has been successful, or should we create another stream of engagement for that? Thank you very much.

Jennifer Chung: Thank you, Jimson. I’ll allow my panelists to give it a little bit of thought. I’ll go straight, actually, to our French intervention, I think, I believe, online. So I’ll go to Pedro first, and then we can go back to the panelists.

Pedro Lana: We have chat as well, but we will leave that for after Nina make her contribution.

Audience: Thank you. Can everyone hear me? Yes. Great. I will speak in French, so I’m giving half a second for people to grab their headsets. Hello, I’m Nina. I come from the internet. I am in Abidjan, in Ivory Coast. I would like to raise the attention on sustainability of the secretariat of the IGF in our country. In our country, we have this multi-stakeholder approach, but after two years… We are tired. And when we have this problem, the secretariat, the government, social society, the private sector, speak all at the same time. So here, it would be good to share what is the experience that we have when we talk about secretariat of the forum, when we talk about regional initiatives and national initiatives. I’m talking about that because I’m in West Africa. We have different experiences. We get different international aid, financial aid, but that cannot go in the pocket of a government. So we have been recommended to have a secretariat. But taking into account the forum agility, do we have to ask the social society to get this finance, this money on our account? So it’s not easy to manage. So I would like to ask to the panelists, what is your experience? What do you recommend us to have a sustainable secretariat? And also, to have a body who could get this aid, this monetary aid to support our activities in the framework of the different capacities of the secretariat, in the framework of the forum. Thank you very much.

Jennifer Chung: Thank you, Nena. I think I speak for, well, I will presume to use my moderator prerogative to say that those of us sitting on the stage are no more experts than those of you here in the room. I already hear questions about how regionals or even nationals will look into implementing all of the different things recommended in the Global Digital Compact. I heard about the question about have we used the Sao Paulo guidelines coming out of NetMundial Plus 10 and how have we done so? And then finally, from Nena, we heard the importance of the sustainability, monetary, the financial sustainability of the IGF Secretariat. I see there is a line at the podium, so I’ll go straight to our next speaker. Please introduce yourself.

Audience: Thank you very much. My name is Nigel Castamere from the Caribbean Telecommunications Union. We’ve coordinated the Caribbean IGF since 2005, and basically, Jennifer, to respond to what you asked about getting experiences from around the world, the Caribbean is part of the GRULAC, and Lilian did mention the CIGF in her presentation. Basically, just to say the challenge we have is the Caribbean, whereas the AP is large and diverse, the Caribbean is small and diverse. Lots of small countries, restricted resources, and so on. But just within the Caribbean, there are four different language groups. I myself am from more the English-speaking language group, and notwithstanding, we have a Caribbean internet governance forum. We have had participation from some of the other language groups, but it has been to date in English. In 2025, we plan to have our 21st CIGF in Cuba, which would be a stretch for us, and we’d be learning, but it would be a more inclusive type of an approach. So we’d probably have a bilingual CIGF for the first time. And then beyond, say, regional communities of interest, we’ve also reached out to other communities of interest, like we are all small island developing states, and we have started a liaison with small island developing states around the world. The Pacific in particular has been our most reliable partner to create a small island developing states CIGF, and we’ve had two sittings of that so far. Of course, that has tended to be more virtual than in person, but it helps us to share our experience with small island developing states around the world who maybe don’t have all the resources to investigate all of these internet governance matters and so on. And one of the products of our CIGF, in fact, has been a policy framework that we have given to help inform our governments in terms of developing internet governance policies. So just to give you an idea of what has been happening, some of these challenges that we face in our region, and what we’ve been doing so far. Thank you.

Jennifer Chung: Thank you very much, Nigel. Especially in highlighting that there is a small island developing states CIGF, so SIDS IGF, looking at issues that are very unique to these states, and also congratulations for the next edition being in Cuba. I’m sure that it’s going to be very interesting and very rewarding. to have a regional meeting there or sub-regional meeting there as well. I’m going to pause to see if there’s any online interventions, I don’t see any hands, so I’ll go to our next speaker in the podium.

Audience: Thank you, Jennifer, and thank you for organising this important session. My name is Annalise Williams, I was the 2024 Chair of the Australian Internet Governance Forum, and just going back to your comment or question earlier about what NRIs are wanting in going into WSIS, we held the Australian IGF in October of this year, and for the first time we developed a position statement, like an output of the IGF. It was drafted by the committee, we put it out for input from stakeholders, and it was agreed, adopted by consensus at the IGF, and it is a position statement on what the Australian internet community wants from the WSIS process. We called on the WSIS review process to adopt meaningful multi-stakeholder processes consistent with the Sao Paolo multi-stakeholder guidelines. We called on the Australian government to ensure the full participation of Australia’s multi-stakeholder community in Australia’s national preparations for the WSIS, and in terms of the IGF, we called for its continuation of its mandate, and we also called on all stakeholders, particularly governments and the private sector, to fully participate in the IGF and commit to its ongoing financial sustainability, and to consider ways to strengthen and enhance the value and efficacy of the IGF, both as a discussion forum and as a key source of information on digital policy issues beyond WSIS. I just wanted to flag that we had done that in Australia. Thank you.

Jennifer Chung: I think it’s really important to highlight all of the different national meetings that have looked into this and it’s really good that the AUIGF has had this output document looking specifically at WSIS plus 20 inputs and also how the Zampala guidelines can be utilised and also how the GDC or implementation of parts of it can be looked at for the Australian community. I’d like to encourage also all of those participants in the Pacific IGF to also input as well. I know there are many, many issues near and dear to your region that are not reflected and are quite unique to the Pacific region as well. I’d like to take a look to see if we have any more online. I don’t believe there are any new hands up. I’d like to go to our next speaker at the podium. Bertrand, please go ahead.

Bertrand La Chapelle: Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Bertrand La Chapelle. I’m the Executive Director of the Internet and Jurisdiction Policy Network and I’m happy to have been one of the co-initiators of both the European IGF, the EuroDIG and the French IGF. One, I find fascinating that from the bottom up, the IGF has transformed into what is today a network of IGF. And so the annual global IGF is actually the global gathering of the network of IGFs. And we should flip the thinking and not see the IGF as proliferating at national level, but we should consider that the global meeting is the moment where the input coming from the IGFs at the national and regional level can be clustered and analyzed together so that, like a respiration, it goes back to them afterwards. The second thing is, as I mentioned in the previous session, the IGF at the global level, but Nenad was mentioning that it is a problem. at the local level as well, is usually caught in a catch-22 situation between the lack of resources and the difficulty to articulate an ambitious vision, because if you don’t have the resources, it’s hard to have a vision and implement it. But if you don’t have the vision, you cannot muster the resources. And in that regard, as Charles was mentioning, I want to give credit to, in many parts of the world, the local country code level domain, CCTLD operators, who have been instrumental, not the only actors, but instrumental sometimes, in providing not only financial, but logistical and in large part substantial support to the local IGFs. And I would like just to put on the table the fact that ICANN is basically the global tax collector for the management of the domain name system and the global public resource. The more it can do to support the global IGF, the better. But the final point I want to make is, and I’m glad to have the opportunity to do it here, is that there’s one topic that we will all have to address next year, which is what is the expanded, renewed, but also revised mandate of the global IGF? And what is its further institutionalization? And for that, I suggest, and I would be happy to have the feedback from people on the panel if they are willing, I think having an engagement of the NRIs in a consultation during 2025 on what do they think should be the process to move beyond the question of reconduction or not, but to address really the question of what is the next institutional step for the IGF would be an amazing approach. I would be really looking forward to seeing what the local and regional IGFs have to say. have to contribute to this discussion.

Jennifer Chung: Thank you, Bertrand. I’ll pause very quickly to see if there’s only two reactions from the panels from all the questions we’ve heard so far.

Giacomo Mazzone: Yes, thank you. I would like to answer to what has been said by Olufoye at the beginning and by Bertrand now. I think that we have to think the other way around. The GDC process needs us. At the moment, the process has been conducted in New York by the people that is following the United Nations General Assembly, that in most cases are not very well connected. I would not say more than that, but at least they are not very well connected with the reality in the world. And the only place where ideas can be tested, can be put on the reality, can be checked, is this. The IGF, during these 20 years, we have all together built something that is very valuable. Not only the NRI network, that is very important because it gives the possibility to consult directly in each country of the world, or mostly of the country of the world in the regional level, what can be done, what cannot be done. But also we have the dynamic coalitions. That means vested interest with a specific purpose that stress the specific aspect of the internet governance problematics. And we have also the policy network. Not only because I’m chair of one of the policy network, but the policy network is a place where you can grassroots collecting best practices that exist. And this best practice can be eventually used to contaminate the. rest of the world. So we have free tools that are the only ones that can bring down to earth the principles that are in the global digital compact. If this will not happen, then there will be another negotiation in New York about international treaties that are trying to regulate something. You remember Gulliver’s travels, the people that were up in the world, in the sky and they were not seeing the earth and they were deciding for the earth. They need us. We have just simple to remember them. Thank you.

Jennifer Chung: Thank You Giacomo. I think Amrita had a very quick response as well and then we’ll go to Pedro online.

Amrita Choudhury: Thank you so much Jim. Jimson, just to respond to your point while I don’t have your entire answer, is perhaps you could refer to a document which the MAG IGF working group on strategy has prepared as a vision document of what the IGF can do to support the various processes. Like for example be an effective coordination space for different follow-ups on digital policies. The policy network on AI is already having a lot of discussions so it could be further enhanced. So not only for Jimson, the others also could look at this document which talks about what the IGF could do and how it can strengthen and how it can help. That anyone can look at and it’s available in the IGF website.

Jennifer Chung: Thank you Amrita for stressing that publication, very recent publication of the working group on strategies document. I’d like to go to Pedro who has some interventions from online.

Pedro Lana: Thanks Jennifer. We have two questions and one comment that were made through the chat. The first one is from Julio Casaguenas from Columbia IGF. He is asking what recommendations will you highlight from your local experience to bring the results of your discussion to government? and decision makers. We also have a question from the IGF Ghana group. What strategies can NRIs use to involve underrepresented groups, such as women, youth, and marginalized communities in digital government? Then we have comments by Wisdom Donkor. He says, to resolve the capacity issues of the IGF secretariat, the force should focus on increasing financial resources through diversified funding and grants, enhancing staffing via recruitment and secondments, and strengthening operational capacity by upgrading infrastructure and outsourcing non-core functions. Staff capacity can be improved through training and knowledge-sharing programs, while community involvement can be boosted by leveraging volunteers, interns, and partnerships. Streamlined governance, stakeholder feedback mechanisms, and advocacy efforts to promote the IGF’s mission are essential to secure broader support and ensure the secretariat can make its growing demands effective. Then we have another two comments, but we will leave that after the on-site participations.

Jennifer Chung: Thank you, Pedro. I think I do see a hand online, if we can actually get to the vocal intervention. If you can unmute our participant who has their hand up online.

Pedro Lana: I will ask tech to unmute, but it takes a few seconds. I think we can get on-site participation while this is happening.

Audience: Hello?

Jennifer Chung: Yes, please go ahead.

Audience: Hello, I am Sumit Bhutne. I am not income on-site. I am online participant, all event full. Fully participate in good webinars. So internally, problem. So I have only events participate text, and necessary event to participate in mention create event, STD and GDC. But he have no admin support on body in today, so I started to permanently delete in events. But I have to achieve to, I am create CRI, and I can register in members, in event and fields, to participate on good debates and unlikely is involvement much entered room is unlikely they favour in text, so I not participate in full line, but I go remark to all event and debates. Thank you all to introduce to myself, myself Sumit Bhutte, I am UN and UN membership, but I like to support. Thank you.

Jennifer Chung: Thank you very much. And I think we will now turn back to the participants on the floor. I do see that there is a line. Our next speaker, please.

Myanmar Youth IGF: Hello, everyone. Thank you, Jennifer, for giving a chance to speak. And also thank you all panelists for sharing your experiences. And anyway, this is Pyo from Myanmar, and I am the co-coordinator of the UIGF Myanmar and South Asia UIGF. I would like to share my experience why we are trying to create a better environment for all the participants. So I would like to start by saying that we have been trying to, you know, foster the collaboration and trying to sustain the youth initiative during this year, firstly. It has been challenging a lot to us at the local level to foster the collaboration because of our current situation and even it is difficult to do so because of the COVID-19 situation, so we have difficulty to define, we have a challenge to define the government statehood in this state but so far as YGF Myanmar, we mostly focus on the capacity building and also trying to get more input from the different regions and states or different regions, so we are trying to get more input from the different regions, so that was even though all of our, we started our youth initiative with 11 organizing committee members. It is getting, like, it’s likely to be many young people have their own challenges, like fulfilling the basic need and continuing their work, so we are trying to get more input from the different regions and also, we have only few people of the young professional, so we are facing the challenge and even within the team to collaborate and finding resources and also sharing the time among us to make this happen yearly. It has been always a challenge to devise design and both in terms of import SNF concept and to mandate in every regions in Thailand, so we recognize the inimity of the or find the final result as we are not registered under any, you know, any title at local. And also, when we try to initiate, like a self-region you initiated, the public is very clear that we already have Asia-Pacific YMGF. We wanted to put more concrete input and feed into related to the internet cases and issue what are happening at the self-regional level as well. For that purpose, we try to gather the organizing committee members, and this year we could make and establish a very first and foremost South Asia YMGF forum. Luckily, with the support of the United Nations IGF Secretaries and also South Asia IGF Secretaries as well as other supporters like IGFSA, we could smoothly organize our very first and foremost self-regional YMGF forum this year. But so far, they are still having the challenge for starting the collaboration among the youth community in the South Asia region, because maybe this is maybe because of this is our very first year, and we need to think about what would be the best way to approach the other countries like Malaysia, Laos, and also Vietnam to invite youth committee members on board in our committee. And that would be great if someone who are from this country also attending at the YMGF. and we will be happy to talk more about our collaboration for next year. Thank you.

Jennifer Chung: Thank you, Pio, for bringing to light how difficult it is for many in many different parts of the world to even meet, to be able to meet, to be able to discuss these issues. Thank you for also highlighting that Youth IGF in Myanmar is still very vibrant and they have their meetings, and congratulations to the Southeast Asian Youth IGF for their initial meeting. I think both Jimson and several others, including Pio, has mentioned the IGF Support Association, which allows for some seed funding to give to initiatives just starting out to be able to meet, to be able to have platforms to meet. I am going to go to the next person in the floor, our next speaker, and then I will go to Pedro online. Please go ahead.

Audience: Thank you so much, the panellists, for your talk, and my name is Naza, Dr Naza Nicholas Kirama from the Tanzania IGF, and I would like to make about 7,000 girls on STEM. We have been able to connect about 800 citizens to affordable and meaningful Internet, and 10 schools have been connected to broadband Internet, and also with the same kind of project, we have been able to…

Jennifer Chung: Thank you, thank you Naza so much for telling us all the good work that Tanzania IGF is doing, and of course… your takeaway for that you know that it takes a village to raise a child, it takes multi-stakeholder model to make all of this work. I’d like now to turn to Pedro who has several comments online. Pedro, please.

Pedro Lana: Yes, I will read two of them. I also noticed that NetMundial and the Sao Paulo guidelines were mentioned and I believe that we have two people from that were involved in the work on site, on the line. I just mentioned that to Jennifer but first the comments that were made on the chat. The first one was from Peter Kinkoye, a convener for the Liberia IGF. He wanted to present a point on the progress of the Liberia IGF that has been hosted in this fifth edition this year with governments and all local stakeholders fully involved in a multi-stakeholder style and have increased their advocacy level to see this level of progress with policy and personal data and cybersecurity strategies that are currently being developed in their governments. This regulatory participation has led to the validation of the draft, the draft Personal Data Protection Act and they intend to sustain the advocacy and discussions on national issues with the collaboration being sustained with support of a vibrant national IGF secretariat supported by the Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications. This collective effort has led to a very visible Liberia IGF and also Liberia hosting its first sub-regional consultative forum on the MIU region for the Liberia with support of the UN IGF and ICANN in the region. We also have a comment from Azeem Sajjad about the importance of internal governance at government level being realized in addition to efforts of individuals already recognized at the global level. The Pakistani School of Internal Governance is playing its role since 10 years in different cities of the country. There is an inventory of work related to Internet policies that has also been keeping the pace, in addition to planning, to restructure departments for enablement of effective digital governance ecosystems. There is a challenge to retain the talents of this space and it’s hard to ensure engagement of individuals after capacity building. Universal meaningful connection as well as Internet censorship for information fake news etc are big challenges nowadays. It has been extremely hard for especially governments to keep the balance in digital policies. AI has been the next big thing which is a big challenge for governments in terms of capacity building, development, deployment, management and issues of governance and oversight. So with those two questions I think we can go back on site. So back to you Jennifer.

Jennifer Chung: Thank you very much Pedro. As you can see there is so many good inputs and we have so little time together. I go back to the floor now. I see there still is a line. If you could please keep your intervention within a minute that would be very much appreciated. Next speaker please.

Pacific IGF: Hello. Thank you Jennifer. This is Andrew Molivare representing the regulators office in Vanuatu and also chair of Pacific IGF. The regulators office has been supporting Pacific IGF over the last years. That started in 2011 and I want to acknowledge my Pacific colleagues who have started this initiative in the Pacific back then. Today the Pacific IGF secretariat is with the Pacific Island chapter of the Internet Society. This year Pacific IGF was held in Wellington and our theme was strengthening digital governance, resilience and resilience in the Pacific Islands. And we were supported by the AUDA, the domain name Authority of Australia, and the .NZ, UNESCO and the European Union through the CAID project. And I think there’s some relevance in the theme that we had this year. As we speak now, I had disasters struck two days ago in my country and caused a total outage of communications for the last two days. And thankfully, we are thankful for the Leo technology that currently we have Starlink, some Starlink set up in the country, and also the government is in discussion with Starlink to set up public Internet access around the town. So it’s becoming a reality and resilience for us. There’s two things probably I want to highlight here before I finish. One is I think we need more support in policy frameworks for responses in times of disaster in the Pacific Islands. As you know, for the last few years, we have had a lot of disasters like the volcano eruptions in Tonga and other cyclones, and the disasters are so frequent. And I think we need the right policies in this direction. And the second and last point is I believe probably there’s room to formalize the NRIs to align with the global IGF and increase support as we look forward for the next 20 years. Just to let you know that Pacific IGF 2025 will be in Apia, Samoa, and feel free to join us. Thank you.

Jennifer Chung: Thank you very much. It’s good to hear from the Pacific IGF point of view and congratulations to Samoa for hosting the next edition. of the Pacific IGF. I know that we have two more here in the ground, and we also have one online. So we’ll take one more speaker here with us. Please keep your intervention very short, within a minute if you can. Thank you so much.

Hong Kong Youth IGF: Thank you very much, Jennifer, and everyone. This is Jasmine Emanco from Hong Kong YIGF. So we have been documenting our achievement on a report. So you can always go to HKYIGF.asia to see it. But then I wanted to share about the challenge that I find it very critical. And it’s not, I believe it’s not only the challenge that we face, it’s about to engage with the government. Despite that, this year, after several years of not having YIGF in Hong Kong, we make a theme called smart economy. We try to speak the language of government, but then we still find it difficult to get them engaged. So everything, you know, the multi-stakeholders that we engage in our HKYIGF, we have all the stakeholders except the government, which is a pity. So for me, I just want to share about this challenge, and hopefully we can get some insight and success case from the other regions. Thank you very much.

Jennifer Chung: Thank you very much, Jasmine. Thank you for giving the views from the Hong Kong Youth IGF. I’d like to go straight to online. Pedro, I believe we have an intervention.

Pedro Lana: Yes, we have an intervention from Nigel Hickson, from the UK. Nigo, I think that you already have permission to open your mic. There we go.

Nigel Hickson: Yes, thank you very much, and good afternoon. It’s an absolute pleasure to take part. I’m a member of the UK IGF. It’s just wonderful to hear so many in our eyes. I’ll be very brief. Three points. I think the Global Digital Compact has set us on the right track. on the right path as we go forward recognizing the immense value of the IGF. We need to build on that in the WSIS Plus 20 process, and we should take nothing for granted. It’s a new debate. Secondly, the UN IGF has done such immense work. I think it should be credited with a longer mandate, a mandate that extends beyond 10 or 20 years. It has so much to contribute to the internet debate. Thirdly, the NRIs need to be recognized in the WSIS Plus 20 resolution that’s adopted. The NRIs are the legitimacy of multi-stakeholder processes. The NRIs are an inspiration, and they need to be recognized for the tremendous work they do in bringing people together to have discussions and coordinate and contribute to the challenges and opportunities we have today. Thank you.

Jennifer Chung: Thank you, Nigel. In the interest of time, our last speaker is here in the ground. Please keep your interventions within one minute. Thank you very much.

North African IGF: Thank you so much. I’m Ahmad Farak, chair of the North African IGF, and allow me to make my intervention in Arabic. Peace be upon you, ladies and gentlemen. I’m very proud today about two things here. We are an Arabic country that is actually hosting this IGF. This is the second time, if I remember very well. I think Egypt was there. It was in Egypt the first one in 2001 in the North African IGF. We have a very good position there. We are actually cooperating with a lot of entities in our countries and in the northern of Africa. The Arabic participation here that we see, that is an excellent one, in fact. It is very good, really, as I said, the good preparation, and that it is hosted here in an Arabic country. And so that, too, and all the works that we are doing to unify our efforts. My friends here, Dr. Shafik Misharik is a participant. We have organized a forum before this forum, in fact, to prepare for the Arabic participation. And the forum for the youth of Africa, we have challenges. We have dreams. We try all the time to enhance the people of concern. The most important thing is the programs of capacity building. We try all the time, the trainings all the time, at different times, like cyber security, and marine technology, and other technologies. And also bringing internet to school, and there will be also different other efforts. We also give trainings for women and youth. Also, we have an idea to give trainings also for the elderly, so that to make them aware of these new technologies, and to make them a part of this digital world. All these dreams that we are dreaming today, there is, we have an obstacle, big obstacle, that is the financial obstacle. I thank, let me thank everybody. I, and others, they are trying to help us through their programs. But all the time, with these dreams that we have here or elsewhere, it is the monetary issue all the time. Thank you very much.

Jennifer Chung: Thank you very much, and it’s very, very important. Our final speaker on the floor, if you can keep your intervention within one minute, that would be so much appreciated.

Audience: Okay, thank you so much. Before I start ask my question, let me introduce myself. I am Mary Henrica, I am from Timor-Leste, and I am one of the fellow IGF fellow. Before I start my question, here I also want to say thank you to the IGF to give me the opportunity to attend the IGF and to give the opportunity for the Timor-Leste people also to attend the IGF. Okay, this is my question. Timor-Leste right now doesn’t have a local IGF, so how can we establish an IGF in our country and what we need to prepare first to have our own local IGF in our country? Thank you.

Jennifer Chung: Thank you so much. Welcome from Timor-Leste, coming here to the Global IGF. If you need information on how to start an IGF, please contact the IGF secretariat, they will be more than happy. We would be more than happy to help you now that we are over time. I would like to remind everyone, we are still taking in all your inputs. Please send them to the IGF secretariat so all of your inputs can be captured for this session as well. I’m going to end with, of course, all our speakers in reverse order this time. So Lillian, the one key takeaway, 15 seconds each, please, Lillian.

Lilian Chamorro Rojas: Thank you very much, everybody, for sharing your experiences, your ideas. I just wanted to conclude with saying that this governance model that we have built all together and that we have all made our own is not just part of an international system, it’s also local. And this is an invitation to value diversity, experience, learnings, and to take advantage of the next year so that we can renovate ourselves, be creative, and propose new actions and ask the right questions for the GDC and the global community. I’m going to turn it over to Charles to talk a little bit more about the role of multi-stakeholderism and how it plays out in W3C’s.

Jennifer Chung: Charles?

Charles Noir: Thanks for a great discussion. This was fabulous. I think what I’m taking away from this is multi-stakeholderism is a practice. It needs to be practiced regularly. It needs to be strengthened and it needs to be evolved. We all have a role in that. And particularly coming from a stakeholder group, if you want to be a stakeholder, you need to have a sense of community.

Jennifer Chung: Thank you, Charles. Amrita?

Amrita Choudhury: Thank you. I would say engage, build capacity, work together to create common dialogues, and to protect what we all cherish, the IGF.

Jennifer Chung: Thank you, Amrita. Lillian?

Lillian Nalwoga: I would like to say there’s really no one-size-fits-all, and we’ve seen that happening in so many different ways, so we need to continue being innovative, creative, to have meaningful participation, whether you’re approaching from organising from a stakeholder aspect or from an issue perspective, we need to be able to be more creative and more innovative.

Jennifer Chung: Thank you, Lillian. Giacomo?

Giacomo Mazzone: Yes, there was a French politician 100 years ago, that was saying the war is too serious to left it to the generals. I think that we need now to decline to the Internet. The Internet is too serious to be left only to the governments. I think that only through the richness of the contribution of all the stakeholders, we can get through. Thank you.

Jennifer Chung: Thank you, Giacomo. Now, back to our home region, Chafic.

Chafic Chaya: Thank you so much, Jennifer. I’ll make my closing remarks in English. First, it’s really appreciated for all these NRIs who came from different regions to speak about their challenges and their opportunities and what they are facing. So on behalf of the Lebanon IGF, I’m happy to help these NRIs to speak about their challenges and their opportunities and what they are facing. to establish and start their NRIs because of the experience that we have during our establishment of the Lebanon IGF. Second, no doubt that the inclusive, open, multi-stakeholder approach is not an option. It’s foundational to build first a community with common vision and objectives that is reflected later in NRIs. And third, as we say as technical people, the internet is the network of networks. So here, the global IGF is the network of the NRIs networks and happy to help anyone that can take our experience and tailor it to their experiences at their national and regional level. Thank you.

Jennifer Chung: Thank you, Shafik. What a perfect way to end this session. I hope it has given you just a small taste of all the really good work that the more than 174 NRIs across the globe do. Please engage with your local IGFs in your region, in your economy, in your home country. Can we give us all a round of applause, all for the work of the IGF and also the NRIs.

Agreement Points

Importance of multi-stakeholder model in internet governance

Chafic Chaya

Giacomo Mazzone

Charles Noir

Lilian Chamorro Rojas

Transformation from conventional to multi-stakeholder governance in MENA region

European institutions promoting consensus-building and multi-stakeholder approach

Multi-stakeholder model crucial for technical operation of internet

Local and regional IGFs contribute to global internet governance

Speakers agree on the crucial role of the multi-stakeholder model in shaping internet governance, emphasizing its importance for technical operations, policy-making, and regional development.

Value of National and Regional IGF Initiatives (NRIs)

Lillian Nalwoga

Amrita Choudhury

Charles Noir

Lilian Chamorro Rojas

Capacity building initiatives driving multi-stakeholder engagement in Africa

Diverse stakeholder inclusion needed in Asia-Pacific region

Value of NRIs in informing national policymaking

Local and regional IGFs contribute to global internet governance

Speakers highlight the importance of NRIs in promoting capacity building, stakeholder engagement, and informing national and regional internet governance policies.

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize the need for capacity building and inclusive participation in their respective regions to strengthen internet governance processes.

Lillian Nalwoga

Amrita Choudhury

Capacity building initiatives driving multi-stakeholder engagement in Africa

Diverse stakeholder inclusion needed in Asia-Pacific region

Both speakers view the WSIS+20 process as an opportunity to strengthen and extend the IGF’s mandate, emphasizing the importance of recognizing and supporting NRIs.

Charles Noir

Nigel Hickson

Opportunity to renew commitment to multi-stakeholderism through WSIS+20

Need to strengthen IGF mandate beyond 10-20 years

Call for NRIs to be recognized in WSIS+20 resolution

Unexpected Consensus

Challenges faced by NRIs across different regions

Ahmed Farag

Jasmine Ko

Andrew Molivurae

Phyo Thiri L.

Financial sustainability challenges for NRI secretariats

Difficulty engaging government stakeholders in some regions

Need for policy frameworks on disaster response in Pacific islands

Challenges in fostering youth collaboration across South Asia

Despite coming from diverse regions, these speakers unexpectedly highlight similar challenges faced by NRIs, including financial constraints, stakeholder engagement difficulties, and the need for specialized policy frameworks.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The main areas of agreement include the importance of the multi-stakeholder model in internet governance, the value of NRIs in capacity building and policy-making, and the need to strengthen the IGF’s mandate through the WSIS+20 process. There is also consensus on the challenges faced by NRIs across different regions.

Consensus level

There is a high level of consensus among speakers on the fundamental principles of internet governance and the role of NRIs. This strong agreement suggests a unified vision for the future of internet governance, which could facilitate more effective collaboration and policy-making at both regional and global levels. However, the shared challenges identified by NRIs from different regions indicate that there are still significant obstacles to overcome in implementing these principles effectively across diverse contexts.

Different Viewpoints

Approach to engaging government stakeholders

Charles Noir

Jasmine Ko

National and Regional IGF Initiatives (NRIs) are seen as important sources of information and guidance for national policymakers. They provide a platform for engaging the community and informing decision-making on internet policy issues.

Some NRIs face challenges in engaging government stakeholders in their multi-stakeholder processes. This lack of government participation can hinder the effectiveness of internet governance discussions and outcomes.

While Charles Noir emphasizes the value of NRIs in informing national policymaking, Jasmine Ko highlights the difficulty in engaging government stakeholders in some regions.

Unexpected Differences

Financial sustainability of NRIs

Ahmed Farag

Charles Noir

NRIs face significant financial obstacles in sustaining their operations and achieving their goals. This financial challenge is a major barrier to realizing the full potential of NRIs in promoting internet governance discussions and capacity building.

The WSIS+20 review process is seen as an opportunity to reinforce and dedicate a commitment to multi-stakeholderism for the next decade. It is viewed as a chance to recognize the importance of the multi-stakeholder model in internet governance.

While the Ahmed Farag highlights financial sustainability as a major challenge for NRIs, Charles Noir focuses on the opportunity to reinforce multi-stakeholderism through WSIS+20 without addressing the financial concerns. This difference in focus on immediate operational challenges versus long-term policy opportunities is unexpected.

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement revolve around the challenges faced by different NRIs, particularly in engaging government stakeholders and ensuring financial sustainability. There are also differences in focus regarding the immediate operational needs of NRIs versus long-term policy opportunities.

difference_level

The level of disagreement among speakers is relatively low, with most differences stemming from varied regional experiences and priorities rather than fundamental disagreements on the value of multi-stakeholderism or the importance of NRIs. These differences highlight the diverse challenges faced by NRIs across different regions and underscore the need for flexible, context-specific approaches to internet governance.

Partial Agreements

Both speakers agree on the importance of inclusive participation in NRIs, but they differ in their focus. Lillian Nalwoga emphasizes tracking outcomes, while Amrita Choudhury focuses on increasing diverse stakeholder participation.

Lillian Nalwoga

Amrita Choudhury

There is a need to develop and track outcomes from NRI meetings to demonstrate their impact. This involves producing key outcome documents from meetings and tracking their implementation at country and regional levels.

The Asia-Pacific region requires the inclusion of diverse stakeholders in internet governance discussions due to its vast diversity in countries, cultures, languages, economies, and levels of technology adoption. Efforts are being made to increase participation from underrepresented groups and economies.

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize the need for capacity building and inclusive participation in their respective regions to strengthen internet governance processes.

Lillian Nalwoga

Amrita Choudhury

Capacity building initiatives driving multi-stakeholder engagement in Africa

Diverse stakeholder inclusion needed in Asia-Pacific region

Both speakers view the WSIS+20 process as an opportunity to strengthen and extend the IGF’s mandate, emphasizing the importance of recognizing and supporting NRIs.

Charles Noir

Nigel Hickson

Opportunity to renew commitment to multi-stakeholderism through WSIS+20

Need to strengthen IGF mandate beyond 10-20 years

Call for NRIs to be recognized in WSIS+20 resolution

Key Takeaways

The multi-stakeholder model is crucial for effective internet governance and should be strengthened

National and Regional Internet Governance Forum (NRI) initiatives play a vital role in shaping global internet governance

Capacity building and inclusivity are key challenges for many NRIs, especially in developing regions

Financial sustainability is a major concern for many NRI initiatives

The upcoming WSIS+20 review presents an opportunity to reinforce commitment to multi-stakeholderism and the IGF

There is a need to better integrate NRI inputs into global internet governance processes

Resolutions and Action Items

Engage NRIs in consultation during 2025 on the future institutional structure of the IGF

Recognize and formalize NRIs in the WSIS+20 resolution

Strengthen the IGF mandate beyond 10-20 years

Develop mechanisms to track outcomes from NRI meetings

Increase support for policy frameworks on disaster response in Pacific islands

Unresolved Issues

How to effectively engage government stakeholders in some regions

How to ensure financial sustainability for NRI initiatives

How to better integrate youth voices in internet governance processes

How to establish new national IGFs in countries that don’t yet have them

How to balance diverse regional needs and priorities in global internet governance

Suggested Compromises

Use the IGF as a platform to support implementation of the Global Digital Compact while maintaining its broader mandate

Balance between global coordination and local/regional autonomy for NRIs

Combine capacity building initiatives with policy discussions to address both immediate and long-term needs

The IGF at the global level, but Nenad was mentioning that it is a problem at the local level as well, is usually caught in a catch-22 situation between the lack of resources and the difficulty to articulate an ambitious vision, because if you don’t have the resources, it’s hard to have a vision and implement it. But if you don’t have the vision, you cannot muster the resources.

speaker

Bertrand de La Chapelle

reason

This comment insightfully identifies a core challenge facing IGFs at all levels – the interplay between vision and resources. It frames the issue in a way that highlights the complexity and interdependence of these factors.

impact

This comment shifted the discussion to focus more on the practical challenges of sustaining IGFs, leading to further comments about funding and support mechanisms. It added a layer of pragmatic analysis to the more abstract discussions of multi-stakeholder models.

The GDC process needs us. At the moment, the process has been conducted in New York by the people that is following the United Nations General Assembly, that in most cases are not very well connected… with the reality in the world. And the only place where ideas can be tested, can be put on the reality, can be checked, is this.

speaker

Giacomo Mazzone

reason

This comment provocatively challenges the top-down approach of global digital governance, asserting the crucial role of IGFs in grounding policy discussions in real-world realities. It highlights the unique value proposition of the IGF ecosystem.

impact

This comment reframed the relationship between IGFs and global governance processes, positioning IGFs as essential rather than peripheral. It sparked further discussion about how to strengthen the link between local/regional IGFs and global policy processes.

We have been able to connect about 800 citizens to affordable and meaningful Internet, and 10 schools have been connected to broadband Internet

speaker

Nazar Nicholas Kirama

reason

This comment provides concrete examples of the tangible impact that IGFs can have on digital inclusion. It moves the discussion from abstract principles to real-world outcomes.

impact

This comment grounded the discussion in practical achievements, leading to more sharing of specific initiatives and outcomes from different regions. It helped illustrate the real-world relevance of IGFs beyond policy discussions.

Timor-Leste right now doesn’t have a local IGF, so how can we establish an IGF in our country and what we need to prepare first to have our own local IGF in our country?

speaker

Mary Henrica

reason

This question from a participant highlights the ongoing process of expanding the IGF network and the interest from underrepresented regions. It brings attention to the practical steps needed to establish new IGFs.

impact

This comment shifted the discussion towards practical advice and support for establishing new IGFs, emphasizing the role of the IGF Secretariat and existing IGFs in supporting expansion. It highlighted the dynamic, growing nature of the IGF ecosystem.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by grounding abstract principles in practical realities, highlighting both challenges and achievements of IGFs at various levels. They shifted the conversation from describing the multi-stakeholder model to critically examining its implementation and impact. The discussion evolved to emphasize the bidirectional relationship between local/regional IGFs and global governance processes, the need for sustainable resources, and the tangible outcomes of IGF initiatives. Overall, these comments deepened the analysis of the IGF ecosystem’s role, challenges, and potential in shaping internet governance.

How can NRIs effectively implement the Global Digital Compact in their respective regions and countries?

speaker

Jimson Olufoye

explanation

This is important to ensure the principles of the Global Digital Compact are applied at local and regional levels.

How can the sustainability of IGF secretariats be improved, particularly in terms of financial resources?

speaker

Nina from Ivory Coast

explanation

Sustainable funding is crucial for the ongoing operations and effectiveness of IGF initiatives.

What strategies can be used to effectively engage governments in IGF processes, particularly in regions where government participation is lacking?

speaker

Jasmine Ko

explanation

Government engagement is crucial for comprehensive multi-stakeholder dialogue and policy impact.

How can the IGF and NRIs be more effectively used as key venues for advocacy?

speaker

Jennifer Chung (moderator)

explanation

Maximizing the impact of IGF initiatives for advocacy purposes can lead to more effective policy outcomes.

What policy frameworks are needed for disaster response in Pacific Islands, particularly related to internet and communication technologies?

speaker

Andrew Molivurae

explanation

Disaster preparedness and response are critical for maintaining connectivity in vulnerable island nations.

How can the IGF’s mandate be extended beyond the current timeframe, and what would be the implications of a longer-term mandate?

speaker

Nigel Hickson

explanation

A longer mandate could provide more stability and allow for long-term planning and impact.

What is the process for establishing a new national IGF, and what preparations are needed?

speaker

Mary Henrica from Timor-Leste

explanation

This information is crucial for expanding the IGF network to new countries and regions.

How can the multi-stakeholder model be further evolved and strengthened in practice?

speaker

Charles Noir

explanation

Continuous improvement of the multi-stakeholder approach is essential for effective internet governance.